Nidra Poller
FrontPageMagazine.com | 3/27/2008
Israel was the guest of honor at this year’s Salon du Livre in Paris, provoking a Muslim boycott which in turn provoked a torrent of well-mannered reprobation.
Egyptian novelist Alaa el-Aswani, disheartened that France would honor “a country guilty of crimes against humanity,” vowed to temper his presence by distributing photos of Palestinian and Lebanese children, victims of “Israel’s policies.” La Fabrique, a small press specialized in post-Zionism that has always snubbed the Book Fair, decided to attend in an act of résistance and display large format photos of Palestinian suffering. A. B. Yehoshua, interviewed on France 2, said he hopes next year’s honored guest will be the independent state of Palestine. Despite an 8% drop in attendance, 165,300 people visited the Salon between 12-19 March. Israeli president Shimon Peres, on a state visit to France, inaugurated the Book Fair. A small cohort of protesters distributed tracts. The exhibition hall was evacuated only once, at 5 PM on Sunday, apparently for a (false) bomb alert. The Israeli stand, crowned with Yisroel in bold Hebrew letters, was a haven of peace and a beehive of activity. Every inch of space around the book tables was occupied, every encounter with one of the 39 featured writers was filled to overflowing, 21,000 books were sold in 6 days. It seemed at times that all the energy of the vast exhibition hall gravitated to the bright, warm, welcoming oasis of Israel. Writers, organizers, translators, interpreters, and the French publishers of the invited writers were delighted.
The absence of Muslim countries, from the UAE to Yemen, was neither audible nor visible. By contrast, Israel was ever-present in literary magazines, literary sections of national papers, and on the airwaves.
If the purpose of the boycott was to close down the show, pack up the books, and send the Israelis home in disgrace, it was a complete failure. But if it was one small gesture in a relentless strategy to destroy the Jewish state, it was a smashing success. It imposed an insane equation on a supposedly intelligent debate: Israeli writers should be respected because they make the sublime effort to accept their Arab neighbors, while these same neighbors refused to stand under the same roof with Israel on the hallowed cultural ground of a book fair! States like Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Lebanon, Libya, invited by President Nicolas Sarkozy to join a Mediterranean Union of peace, harmony, and prosperity wouldn’t even stand side by side with Israel at a Book Fair.
The naked message -- prove you are willing to dialogue with the Other who is determined to exterminate you -- was played out in infinite variations in French media, directly, in interviews with authors, indirectly in political broadcasts about the Middle East, surreptitiously in newscasts. Charles Enderlin (of Mohamed al Dura fame) proudly presented his new book, in which he demonstrates that the state of Israel was founded on Zionist terrorism, as indicated by the title Par le feu et par le sang [with fire, with blood]. Deftly associating a slogan of the Jewish underground—“In blood and fire Judea fell, in blood and fire Judea will rise”—to the war cry currently belted out by jihadis thirsting for Jewish blood, Enderlin justifies his portrayal of Palestinian terrorism as a natural outgrowth of the Zionist variety.
An interview with Ron Leshem, author of Beaufort, was the occasion to take digs at the meaningless death of Israeli soldiers in the useless 1982 Lebanon war. Followed by stabs at Jews from Arab countries who should have been able to help Israelis get along with their Arab neighbors but failed because of an inexplicable hatred of Arabs. In political broadcasts, the United States was tongue lashed and invited to get out of the Middle East; Israel and the U.S. were told to accept Hamas and Hezbollah if they ever want to see peace in the Middle East; and the recent “tragedy” in Jerusalem [the murder of eight students at Mercaz Harav] was accepted as a logical reaction to the “tragedy” in Gaza [the Warm Winter operation].
Such an opinion was shared by an editor at the Fabrique stand. Pointing to large format photos of demolished buildings, long lines at checkpoints, the infamous wall, and holes in the walls of Palestinian homes--“Israeli soldiers go from house to house through the walls” —she declares: "All of Gaza is rubble today. Eighty of the 120 killed were civilians. When you do that you should expect to be attacked."
At the Israeli stand, bestselling novelist Eshkol Nevo, laureate of the France-Israel Foundation prize, wonders how anyone can write in this dazzlingly beautiful city of Paris … where there is no matsav. His face shines with goodness as he explains that perhaps his novel Homesick is appreciated because of a Palestinian character, a construction worker who reflects on the Nakba in interior monologues. This effort to portray the Other from within has brought him international success. He had a long cordial conversation with a Palestinian professor who attended his talk in Cambridge. He’s not sure why individual writers from the boycotting countries didn’t attend. Maybe because they see Israel as an aggressive country that is doing harm…
Outlandish claims that were once limited to far-out Islamist websites are now comfortably seated in the mainstream media. Susan Abulhawa is indignant because the Paris Book Fair honored Israel “a 60 year old country established in place of the ancient land of Palestine” (Libération March 18). The Jews have turned a “once multi-religious, multi-ethnic, and multi-cultural land” into a place reserved for Jews only. "Jesus was Palestinian, some Palestinians are Canaanites, Israel is guilty of ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and turning Gaza into a concentration camp. Palestinians are forced to negotiate for their basic human rights." Abulhawa, invited by Fox News to comment on the Annapolis meeting politely, explained to a dimwitted reporter that the Palestinians should not be asked to negotiate with their oppressors. The prestigious Buchet-Chastel will publish the French translation of Albuhama’s novel Scar of David, in which a Palestinian child stolen by an Israeli soldier in 1948 becomes a soldier in turn and discovers his Palestinian brother Youssef…
And we discover, thanks to the intrepid Khaled Abou Toameh, that a Fatah leader is asking Palestinians from all over the world to peacefully invade Israel on May 14th to reclaim their homes and their land.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Justice in the Hariri case will be easier said than done
The Daily Star-Arab media
by Marc J Sirois
The incubation of the United Nations Special Tribunal for Lebanon has been an embarrassing affair for virtually everyone concerned - except the only people still detained in connection with the principal crime at hand. This is not an exoneration of the men in question, but it is an indictment of the process in whose clutches they remain. More than three years after former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and almost two dozen other people were killed by a massive bombing in Beirut, no trial has taken place and no charges have been laid. Four senior members of the Lebanese security apparatus then operating under Syrian stewardship have been in jail since late August 2005. Initially, it was widely reported that the four generals - Jamil Sayyed, director of General Security; Raymond Azar, head of military intelligence; Ali Hajj, commander of the Internal Security Forces; and Mustafa Hamdan, commander of the Presidential Guard - had been "officially charged" in the crime by the Lebanese judiciary.
Now we are told that this was not precisely so, that in fact the authorities in Beirut filed "preliminary charges" but then placed the generals in "preventive custody" on the recommendation of the man who then headed the International Independent Investigation Commission (IIIC), German prosecutor Detlev Mehlis.
This raises all sorts of questions, none of them very flattering to either Lebanese or UN justice, but they constitute just one part of a multi-faceted boondoggle that has, thus far, managed to generate nothing but controversy and conspiracy theories.
Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime initially cooperated with Mehlis but then accused him of bias and basically offered some pointed travel directions for him and the horse on which he rode in. Damascus adopted a more conciliatory tack with the man who took over the IIIC in January 2006 , Belgian prosecutor Serge Brammertz, but even though he publicly commended the Syrians for their cooperation, he eventually ran into Assad's refusal to have any Syrian suspects tried anywhere but in his own courts.
Now Brammertz has left, too, and Canada's Daniel Bellemare has been tapped to take the case to trial. The latter had better do some serious studying of the evidence bequeathed to him, as well as of the nasty politics involved and how the two may intertwine. Otherwise the most he can hope to accomplish is a partial unraveling of the Hariri assassination, a victory that would be made that much more pyrrhic for having assured the more comprehensive destruction of Lebanon.
The terms through which the tribunal was to be created, including the prerogatives that its judges and prosecutors would enjoy, played a large part in reducing the Lebanese Cabinet to the rump that currently governs parts of the country and officially represents its people in international forums. Even - and perhaps especially - after the UN Security Council unilaterally established the court on paper, the purposes to which some players want to turn it remain a casus belli in waiting for Lebanon's next civil war. Periodically, more rabid supporters of the current regime in Beirut (led by the March 14 Forces coalition) sound alarms to the effect that the international community is on the verge of caving in to Damascene intransigence and making a deal that would spare some or all of the Syrian suspects in exchange for a promise not to stir trouble in Lebanon. Others state openly that the court should reopen political crimes committed here as far back as 1975 (although not, conveniently, those with which they themselves were associated).
The unsightly process has put enormous strains on this country, and despite all the heartache, there is a very real danger that the simple but powerful slogan of those most determined to obtain justice in the Hariri assassination - "The Truth" - will join the ranks of its victims.
One cause is a clash of perceptions regarding the respective approaches of Mehlis and Brammertz, a contest joined with greater enthusiasm by various shills here and in America than by either of the principals, especially the latter. Of particular unhelpfulness is the analysis of commentators whose overt bias is compounded by their lacking even the rudimentary knowledge necessary to feign so much as basic understanding of how the administration of justice takes place in a civilized setting.
We are treated, therefore, to vapid expansions on Mehlis' questioning of Brammertz's "failure" to publicly identify additional suspects in the two years that he ran the IIIC. Mehlis himself, who has lately made the rounds of media outlets like The Wall Street Journal and Lebanon's LBCI Television, has since wisely stepped back a little from that position, but it has been taken up with gusto by lesser lights. Informed by re-runs of the mal-informed courtroom dramas that once infested American television before "reality" programming made us miss even them, these "analysts" imagine that being able to name all the characters on "Law & Order" equips them to appraise the relative merits of Messrs. Mehlis and Brammertz. The effects of these fantasies are exacerbated, too, by the fact that on at least one level, the German followed a more or less American approach and the Belgian did not: The former publicly identified suspects, while the latter took a much more circumspect approach.
I'm no lawyer, but even I know that many of the tactics employed in the US justice system(s) (50 state set-ups, innumerable county ones, a heavily politicized network of federal courts, various appendages operating in the parallel universe known as the District of Columbia, etc.) are a source of considerable mirth among denizens of more coherent - and more reliable - jurisdictions throughout most of the industrialized world. The situation is not as bad as in Japan, where prosecutors obtain convictions or "confessions" in a chilling 99 percent of cases, but it is not far off. For all their frequent coddling of criminals, many of the American schemes still encourage prosecutors to employ the legal equivalents of blackmail, weapons of mass destruction , and terrorism.
The first comes when suspects are publicly identified (or threatened with same) when the evidence against them is relatively weak, a practice frequently aimed at forcing them to accept a plea bargain and/or to testify against others in order to save their reputations and/or avoid heavier fines and prison sentences. When the evidence is even scantier, the same people are often described as "persons of interest," sometimes because prosecutors fear being sued for what amounts to intimidating witnesses. The second is when US authorities make use of special legislation designed to coerce guilty pleas by freezing the assets of the person or company involved before they have been convicted of any offense. This essentially does away with the presumption of innocence, and it can be difficult for any defendant to resist such pressure when his or her entire life is thrown into chaos. Legal terrorism is what results when American prosecutors are allowed to withhold evidence against their targets until the last possible moment, preventing the defendant from mounting an effective defense. Some lawyers call it "trial by ambush."
What all this means is that neither the American system nor the TV version thereof is a useful standard by which to measure the proceedings in the Hariri case. Mehlis did identify some suspects, but only after leaks to the media had alerted his quarry. As for the idea that arresting people and gaining information by interrogating them is the only way to investigate a crime, it hardly applies to an international case in which a sovereign government refuses to turn people over for that purpose. There are several ways to skin the proverbial cat , but the fact of the matter is that if you lack the ability to lay your hands on a suspect, there is little point in letting him know how much - or how little - you know. There is even less in comparing Mehlis to Brammertz, at least at this stage, when you don't even understand the procedural options at their disposal, never mind the reasons they might have had for choosing some over others.
As for the four generals, it can only be hoped that they will get their day in court - and that this will be sooner rather than later. This is not a matter of sympathy but of ensuring that justice is both done and seen to be done.
Those who argue that the men in question do not deserve fair treatment because of the draconian habits of the security apparatus during their reigns miss several points. The protections afforded by the principles of due process, for example, are more important, not less, when the severity of the crime in question is acute. The records of the detainees have nothing to do with their rights, especially when a supposedly new regime has promised a departure from the standards in place during the period when those records were built. This is particularly true when so many members in good standing of the current establishment enjoyed the same status under the previous one: These ought to be wary of giving the impression that it is not so much the generals they want to keep locked up as the secrets they might otherwise divulge.
Selective enforcement of the law means, in effect, that there is no law at all, only the fiat of those who happen to be in charge on a given day. This is a lesson that Lebanon's political class should have learned during the era of Syrian "tutelage," one taught most painfully to none other than Samir Geagea, head of the Lebanese Forces and one of March 14's most outspoken hard-liners. Geagea rarely says anything with which I agree - but his incarceration for more than a decade was plainly at odds with at least the spirit and very likely the letter of the law. No one knows better than he that such miscarriages of justice rarely manage to accomplish their intended purposes, only to embitter the victims and to rally their supporters.
Marc J. Sirois is managing editor of THE DAILY STAR . His e-mail address is marc.sirois@dailystar.com.lb
by Marc J Sirois
The incubation of the United Nations Special Tribunal for Lebanon has been an embarrassing affair for virtually everyone concerned - except the only people still detained in connection with the principal crime at hand. This is not an exoneration of the men in question, but it is an indictment of the process in whose clutches they remain. More than three years after former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and almost two dozen other people were killed by a massive bombing in Beirut, no trial has taken place and no charges have been laid. Four senior members of the Lebanese security apparatus then operating under Syrian stewardship have been in jail since late August 2005. Initially, it was widely reported that the four generals - Jamil Sayyed, director of General Security; Raymond Azar, head of military intelligence; Ali Hajj, commander of the Internal Security Forces; and Mustafa Hamdan, commander of the Presidential Guard - had been "officially charged" in the crime by the Lebanese judiciary.
Now we are told that this was not precisely so, that in fact the authorities in Beirut filed "preliminary charges" but then placed the generals in "preventive custody" on the recommendation of the man who then headed the International Independent Investigation Commission (IIIC), German prosecutor Detlev Mehlis.
This raises all sorts of questions, none of them very flattering to either Lebanese or UN justice, but they constitute just one part of a multi-faceted boondoggle that has, thus far, managed to generate nothing but controversy and conspiracy theories.
Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime initially cooperated with Mehlis but then accused him of bias and basically offered some pointed travel directions for him and the horse on which he rode in. Damascus adopted a more conciliatory tack with the man who took over the IIIC in January 2006 , Belgian prosecutor Serge Brammertz, but even though he publicly commended the Syrians for their cooperation, he eventually ran into Assad's refusal to have any Syrian suspects tried anywhere but in his own courts.
Now Brammertz has left, too, and Canada's Daniel Bellemare has been tapped to take the case to trial. The latter had better do some serious studying of the evidence bequeathed to him, as well as of the nasty politics involved and how the two may intertwine. Otherwise the most he can hope to accomplish is a partial unraveling of the Hariri assassination, a victory that would be made that much more pyrrhic for having assured the more comprehensive destruction of Lebanon.
The terms through which the tribunal was to be created, including the prerogatives that its judges and prosecutors would enjoy, played a large part in reducing the Lebanese Cabinet to the rump that currently governs parts of the country and officially represents its people in international forums. Even - and perhaps especially - after the UN Security Council unilaterally established the court on paper, the purposes to which some players want to turn it remain a casus belli in waiting for Lebanon's next civil war. Periodically, more rabid supporters of the current regime in Beirut (led by the March 14 Forces coalition) sound alarms to the effect that the international community is on the verge of caving in to Damascene intransigence and making a deal that would spare some or all of the Syrian suspects in exchange for a promise not to stir trouble in Lebanon. Others state openly that the court should reopen political crimes committed here as far back as 1975 (although not, conveniently, those with which they themselves were associated).
The unsightly process has put enormous strains on this country, and despite all the heartache, there is a very real danger that the simple but powerful slogan of those most determined to obtain justice in the Hariri assassination - "The Truth" - will join the ranks of its victims.
One cause is a clash of perceptions regarding the respective approaches of Mehlis and Brammertz, a contest joined with greater enthusiasm by various shills here and in America than by either of the principals, especially the latter. Of particular unhelpfulness is the analysis of commentators whose overt bias is compounded by their lacking even the rudimentary knowledge necessary to feign so much as basic understanding of how the administration of justice takes place in a civilized setting.
We are treated, therefore, to vapid expansions on Mehlis' questioning of Brammertz's "failure" to publicly identify additional suspects in the two years that he ran the IIIC. Mehlis himself, who has lately made the rounds of media outlets like The Wall Street Journal and Lebanon's LBCI Television, has since wisely stepped back a little from that position, but it has been taken up with gusto by lesser lights. Informed by re-runs of the mal-informed courtroom dramas that once infested American television before "reality" programming made us miss even them, these "analysts" imagine that being able to name all the characters on "Law & Order" equips them to appraise the relative merits of Messrs. Mehlis and Brammertz. The effects of these fantasies are exacerbated, too, by the fact that on at least one level, the German followed a more or less American approach and the Belgian did not: The former publicly identified suspects, while the latter took a much more circumspect approach.
I'm no lawyer, but even I know that many of the tactics employed in the US justice system(s) (50 state set-ups, innumerable county ones, a heavily politicized network of federal courts, various appendages operating in the parallel universe known as the District of Columbia, etc.) are a source of considerable mirth among denizens of more coherent - and more reliable - jurisdictions throughout most of the industrialized world. The situation is not as bad as in Japan, where prosecutors obtain convictions or "confessions" in a chilling 99 percent of cases, but it is not far off. For all their frequent coddling of criminals, many of the American schemes still encourage prosecutors to employ the legal equivalents of blackmail, weapons of mass destruction , and terrorism.
The first comes when suspects are publicly identified (or threatened with same) when the evidence against them is relatively weak, a practice frequently aimed at forcing them to accept a plea bargain and/or to testify against others in order to save their reputations and/or avoid heavier fines and prison sentences. When the evidence is even scantier, the same people are often described as "persons of interest," sometimes because prosecutors fear being sued for what amounts to intimidating witnesses. The second is when US authorities make use of special legislation designed to coerce guilty pleas by freezing the assets of the person or company involved before they have been convicted of any offense. This essentially does away with the presumption of innocence, and it can be difficult for any defendant to resist such pressure when his or her entire life is thrown into chaos. Legal terrorism is what results when American prosecutors are allowed to withhold evidence against their targets until the last possible moment, preventing the defendant from mounting an effective defense. Some lawyers call it "trial by ambush."
What all this means is that neither the American system nor the TV version thereof is a useful standard by which to measure the proceedings in the Hariri case. Mehlis did identify some suspects, but only after leaks to the media had alerted his quarry. As for the idea that arresting people and gaining information by interrogating them is the only way to investigate a crime, it hardly applies to an international case in which a sovereign government refuses to turn people over for that purpose. There are several ways to skin the proverbial cat , but the fact of the matter is that if you lack the ability to lay your hands on a suspect, there is little point in letting him know how much - or how little - you know. There is even less in comparing Mehlis to Brammertz, at least at this stage, when you don't even understand the procedural options at their disposal, never mind the reasons they might have had for choosing some over others.
As for the four generals, it can only be hoped that they will get their day in court - and that this will be sooner rather than later. This is not a matter of sympathy but of ensuring that justice is both done and seen to be done.
Those who argue that the men in question do not deserve fair treatment because of the draconian habits of the security apparatus during their reigns miss several points. The protections afforded by the principles of due process, for example, are more important, not less, when the severity of the crime in question is acute. The records of the detainees have nothing to do with their rights, especially when a supposedly new regime has promised a departure from the standards in place during the period when those records were built. This is particularly true when so many members in good standing of the current establishment enjoyed the same status under the previous one: These ought to be wary of giving the impression that it is not so much the generals they want to keep locked up as the secrets they might otherwise divulge.
Selective enforcement of the law means, in effect, that there is no law at all, only the fiat of those who happen to be in charge on a given day. This is a lesson that Lebanon's political class should have learned during the era of Syrian "tutelage," one taught most painfully to none other than Samir Geagea, head of the Lebanese Forces and one of March 14's most outspoken hard-liners. Geagea rarely says anything with which I agree - but his incarceration for more than a decade was plainly at odds with at least the spirit and very likely the letter of the law. No one knows better than he that such miscarriages of justice rarely manage to accomplish their intended purposes, only to embitter the victims and to rally their supporters.
Marc J. Sirois is managing editor of THE DAILY STAR . His e-mail address is marc.sirois@dailystar.com.lb
Five racial absolutes become myths
Harry R. Jackson, Jr.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Jeremiah Wright’s controversial sermons have created a huge media buzz concerning race in America. Most of us have heard nothing else on the cable news networks for nearly two weeks running. Last week I sat in the green room of the Lehrer News Hour preparing to discuss Wright’s theology and the role of the church to bring healing to the race problem in our nation. The segment just before me featured the head of the Pew Research Center. he Pew representative stated surprising results from their survey conducted from March 19-22. Although 35% of voters cited that their opinion of Barak Obama has grown less favorable and most voters were offended by Wright’s comment, the debacle had somehow not undermined the support of the Obama faithful. He has maintained a 39 to 49 percent advantage over Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. The turning point for Senator Obama was his nationally televised speech on race. The speech distinctly stopped his political bleeding. Pew concluded that the speech was positively received by his base. In addition, both Clinton and McCain supporters also gave Obama high marks for the speech. While many believe that Jeremiah Wright’s sermons will come to haunt Senator Obama in the general election, the Senator seems to have dodged a bullet.
As I mused on the dynamic changes occurring in American culture, I could not help thinking that many racial “absolutes” are shifting dramatically. Let’s take a moment to think about 5 absolutes that may be changing.
MYTH #1 - SUNDAY MORNING: THE MOST SEGREGATED TIME IN AMERICA
Sunday brunch and “mall patrol” are becoming part of many unchurched American’s routines. Sunday is often a leisure/ outing time for the secular community. Increasingly places like Georgetown and Tyson’s Corner in the Washington, DC area are awash with a multi-racial group of “mallers.” Additionally, mega churches are actively attempting to integrate the pews. White churches no longer have an invisible “no blacks wanted” sign hung over their doors. The integration of congregations is not just being led by white pastors. In 1981, I was one of the first black preachers in America to lead a predominately white congregation.
What was novel in those years, is becoming more and more common place today.
MYTH #2 - BLACKS WITH COMPARABLE EDUCATION TO WHITES GET PAID LESS
As my co-author and I searched the dusty pages of income data by race in preparing our new book (Personal Faith, Public Policy), we were shocked at how close salaries actually are. Black PhDs actually make more money on average than their white counterparts, while black bachelor degree holders make less than 9 percent fewer dollars than whites.
MYTH #3 - ONE RACE IS SUPERIOR OVER ANOTHER
The inferiority of one race versus another has been debated back and forth from the beginning of the nation. For example, one of the justifications for slavery was the “inherent inferiority” of black people. Time and time again sports authorities have claimed superiority of blacks in certain sports along with the limitations of whites.
Careers have risen and fallen on an announcer’s statement about black sports prowess. Most shocking in recent years was Michael Irvin's comments that Tony Romo, the Dallas Cowboy superstar quarterback, had to have black blood. Ironically, Irvin is a black, pro-football great, turned sportscaster. Similar statements by white media figures would have gotten them fired. Whether cultural truisms acknowledge it or not, racial distinctives in adulthood are due to nurture not nature.
MYTH #4 - THE BLACK COMMUNITY IS MONOLITHIC
The unity of the black community was its greatest strength in the civil right days. In addition, black political unity gave rise to its influence in the Democratic Party. It is easy to see today that unconditional black commitment to the Democratic Party has become a real liability to the advancement of black community concerns.
The black community is growing. A Pew research study released in November of 2007 shows that blacks self identify as two different black communities. They reported that African Americans see “a widening gulf between the values of middle class and poor blacks.” In light of this split they do not feel that blacks can be considered one race any more. Once this truth was teased out by the Pew survey, it is little wonder that many blacks are less positive about their future than any other time since 1983.
Although blacks feel very strongly that discrimination is still very much alive in the nation, the study showed that overt racial hatred is less for both blacks and whites than it has been in decades. Pew found that blacks are unified in their lack of confidence in the criminal justice system as well.
MYTH #5 - BLACK POLITICIANS CANNOT COUNT ON WHITE SUPPORT AT THE POLLS
White voters have followed through in supporting Barak Obama thus far in this election. Therefore, the failure of attractive black candidates to close the deal with the American public at the polls (sometimes called the Bradley or Wilder effect) seems to have been nullified by Senator Obama.
A decade from now the entire racial landscape of the nation can be changed for the better if we seize the moment. The evangelical Christian community has the greatest chance of any community to lead the way in resolving the race issue in America. In light of our unique position in modern history, let’s make a difference starting today.
Bishop Harry Jackson is chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition and senior pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, MD, and co-authored, Personal Faith, Public Policy [FrontLine; March 2008] with Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Jeremiah Wright’s controversial sermons have created a huge media buzz concerning race in America. Most of us have heard nothing else on the cable news networks for nearly two weeks running. Last week I sat in the green room of the Lehrer News Hour preparing to discuss Wright’s theology and the role of the church to bring healing to the race problem in our nation. The segment just before me featured the head of the Pew Research Center. he Pew representative stated surprising results from their survey conducted from March 19-22. Although 35% of voters cited that their opinion of Barak Obama has grown less favorable and most voters were offended by Wright’s comment, the debacle had somehow not undermined the support of the Obama faithful. He has maintained a 39 to 49 percent advantage over Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. The turning point for Senator Obama was his nationally televised speech on race. The speech distinctly stopped his political bleeding. Pew concluded that the speech was positively received by his base. In addition, both Clinton and McCain supporters also gave Obama high marks for the speech. While many believe that Jeremiah Wright’s sermons will come to haunt Senator Obama in the general election, the Senator seems to have dodged a bullet.
As I mused on the dynamic changes occurring in American culture, I could not help thinking that many racial “absolutes” are shifting dramatically. Let’s take a moment to think about 5 absolutes that may be changing.
MYTH #1 - SUNDAY MORNING: THE MOST SEGREGATED TIME IN AMERICA
Sunday brunch and “mall patrol” are becoming part of many unchurched American’s routines. Sunday is often a leisure/ outing time for the secular community. Increasingly places like Georgetown and Tyson’s Corner in the Washington, DC area are awash with a multi-racial group of “mallers.” Additionally, mega churches are actively attempting to integrate the pews. White churches no longer have an invisible “no blacks wanted” sign hung over their doors. The integration of congregations is not just being led by white pastors. In 1981, I was one of the first black preachers in America to lead a predominately white congregation.
What was novel in those years, is becoming more and more common place today.
MYTH #2 - BLACKS WITH COMPARABLE EDUCATION TO WHITES GET PAID LESS
As my co-author and I searched the dusty pages of income data by race in preparing our new book (Personal Faith, Public Policy), we were shocked at how close salaries actually are. Black PhDs actually make more money on average than their white counterparts, while black bachelor degree holders make less than 9 percent fewer dollars than whites.
MYTH #3 - ONE RACE IS SUPERIOR OVER ANOTHER
The inferiority of one race versus another has been debated back and forth from the beginning of the nation. For example, one of the justifications for slavery was the “inherent inferiority” of black people. Time and time again sports authorities have claimed superiority of blacks in certain sports along with the limitations of whites.
Careers have risen and fallen on an announcer’s statement about black sports prowess. Most shocking in recent years was Michael Irvin's comments that Tony Romo, the Dallas Cowboy superstar quarterback, had to have black blood. Ironically, Irvin is a black, pro-football great, turned sportscaster. Similar statements by white media figures would have gotten them fired. Whether cultural truisms acknowledge it or not, racial distinctives in adulthood are due to nurture not nature.
MYTH #4 - THE BLACK COMMUNITY IS MONOLITHIC
The unity of the black community was its greatest strength in the civil right days. In addition, black political unity gave rise to its influence in the Democratic Party. It is easy to see today that unconditional black commitment to the Democratic Party has become a real liability to the advancement of black community concerns.
The black community is growing. A Pew research study released in November of 2007 shows that blacks self identify as two different black communities. They reported that African Americans see “a widening gulf between the values of middle class and poor blacks.” In light of this split they do not feel that blacks can be considered one race any more. Once this truth was teased out by the Pew survey, it is little wonder that many blacks are less positive about their future than any other time since 1983.
Although blacks feel very strongly that discrimination is still very much alive in the nation, the study showed that overt racial hatred is less for both blacks and whites than it has been in decades. Pew found that blacks are unified in their lack of confidence in the criminal justice system as well.
MYTH #5 - BLACK POLITICIANS CANNOT COUNT ON WHITE SUPPORT AT THE POLLS
White voters have followed through in supporting Barak Obama thus far in this election. Therefore, the failure of attractive black candidates to close the deal with the American public at the polls (sometimes called the Bradley or Wilder effect) seems to have been nullified by Senator Obama.
A decade from now the entire racial landscape of the nation can be changed for the better if we seize the moment. The evangelical Christian community has the greatest chance of any community to lead the way in resolving the race issue in America. In light of our unique position in modern history, let’s make a difference starting today.
Bishop Harry Jackson is chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition and senior pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, MD, and co-authored, Personal Faith, Public Policy [FrontLine; March 2008] with Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.
Rice Visit Heralds Last-Minute Balk on Opening of E-1 Station
Ezra HaLevi
In what may be yet another concession due to the visit of United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the opening of the E-1 region Jewish police station in the area between Jerusalem and Maaleh Adumim was delayed at the last minute.
Public Security Minister Avi Dichter announced the government’s decision to postpone the police station's opening on Sunday. The opening was scheduled for the next day.
Dichter downplayed the decision, claiming it did not stem from Rice’s presence in the region. The US is known to oppose Jewish building that would complete the contiguous Jewish presence around Jerusalem.
E-1, also known as Mevasseret Adumim, is a 4.6 square mile section of state-owned land, east of Jerusalem, connecting the large town of Maaleh Adumim with the capital. It is bordered by the French Hill neighborhood of Jerusalem to the west, Abu Dis to the southwest, Kedar to the south, Ma'ale Adumim to the east, and Almon to the north.
Police will begin using the police station nonetheless, Arutz-7 has learned. “The Judea and Samaria police will for sure operate from the building,” Dichter said. “[The delay] has nothing to do with any diplomatic issues.”
What has been cancelled is a festive celebration of the station’s opening. And although the station will begin to be used, plans to build 3,500 housing units in the E-1 area remain frozen by the Olmert government.
In what may be yet another concession due to the visit of United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the opening of the E-1 region Jewish police station in the area between Jerusalem and Maaleh Adumim was delayed at the last minute.
Public Security Minister Avi Dichter announced the government’s decision to postpone the police station's opening on Sunday. The opening was scheduled for the next day.
Dichter downplayed the decision, claiming it did not stem from Rice’s presence in the region. The US is known to oppose Jewish building that would complete the contiguous Jewish presence around Jerusalem.
E-1, also known as Mevasseret Adumim, is a 4.6 square mile section of state-owned land, east of Jerusalem, connecting the large town of Maaleh Adumim with the capital. It is bordered by the French Hill neighborhood of Jerusalem to the west, Abu Dis to the southwest, Kedar to the south, Ma'ale Adumim to the east, and Almon to the north.
Police will begin using the police station nonetheless, Arutz-7 has learned. “The Judea and Samaria police will for sure operate from the building,” Dichter said. “[The delay] has nothing to do with any diplomatic issues.”
What has been cancelled is a festive celebration of the station’s opening. And although the station will begin to be used, plans to build 3,500 housing units in the E-1 area remain frozen by the Olmert government.
U.S. 'Very Surprised' at Extent of Israeli Concessions
Gil Ronen
Israeli diplomatic sources said Sunday that the American delegation was very surprised at the extent of Israeli concessions to the Fatah-controlled "Palestinian Authority" (PA) announced by Defense Minister Ehud Barak. However, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was quick to say that they were not enough, and vowed to monitor Israel's execution of its promises. The latest Israeli concessions to the PA in Judea and Samaria include permission for construction of two new Arab neighborhoods in the Ramallah area, with a total of 5,000 to 8,000 housing units. In addition, about 50 closed roads will be opened in Samaria, thus enabling vehicular traffic between Jenin, Tulkarm, Kalkilya and Ramallah. The permanent IDF checkpoint in the Rimonim area will be removed.
Barak announced the decisions in the meeting he held with PA "Prime Minister" Salam Fayyad and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Sunday.
Rice Talks Tough About Israeli Compliance
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had some tough words for Israel Sunday regarding the "gestures" Israel has undertaken to carry out in Judea and Samaria.
"We will monitor exactly what the Israelis do and the purpose is to improve the Palestinians' freedom of movement," Rice said. "We want to be much more systematic about what is promised and what is
"We want to be much more systematic about what is promised and what is actually carried out," Rice added.
actually carried out," she added.
American special envoy General William Fraser, Rice explained, will be following Israel's implementation of the Road Map closely "and making sure that the road blocks are indeed removed and that this has an impact on the Palestinians' freedom of movement." Before Fraser arrived, she said, "we did not do this, and we received promises that the Israeli steps would be carried out within a short time. I expect this to happen very soon."
25 APCs, 125 more vehicles
The Israeli concessions also included the following:
1. PA para-military police stations will open in some areas under joint Israeli and PA control.
2. 700 PA police personnel will be deployed in the Jenin area, once they return from training in Jordan. Ultimate security responsibility will remain in Israel's hands.
3. Additional roadblocks and checkpoints in Judea and Samaria are to be removed by mid-May.
4. 25 APC's – out of 50 originally requested – and 125 additional vehicles and pieces of logistical equipment will be delivered to PA/Fatah hands.
5. Various restrictions on the movement of public figures will be eased.
6. Various restrictions on the movement of businessmen will be eased.
7. An additional 5,000 permits will be issued for Arab construction workers in Israel (the current quota is approximately 18,500).
8. The Sha'ar Ephraim Crossing for will be opened for commercial activity on Fridays.
Two new Arab neighborhoods in the Ramallah area. In addition, about 50 dirt roadblocks in Samaria will be removed.
9. Israel will allow the passage of businessmen from Arab countries, the United Kingdom, Turkey, the PA and Israel on a VIP footing (without checks) through Ben-Gurion International Airport, for the Bethlehem Economic Conference for Investors in May. Israeli businessmen will be allowed to enter Bethlehem for the conference. Businessmen attending the conference will be allowed to move in organized groups in Judea and Samaria cities, and into Israel (including Jerusalem and Nazareth).
10. Industrial Zones will be established in Jericho, Hevron (Tarkumiyah) and Mukibla. The Tarkumiya Industrial Zone will receive Turkish financing. Another industrial zone will be established in Jericho for the processing and marketing abroad of PA agricultural produce. Japan and Jordan will be involved in this project.
A statement issued after the talks said that "the parties have completed connection of 27 Palestinian villages in [Judea and Samaria] to the Israeli power grid and, in an unprecedented action, have connected Jericho to the Jordan power grid."
PA will 'work' against terror
The agreements reached in the talks between Rice, Barak and Fayyad include only one commitment by the PA. "For its part, the Palestinian Authority will deploy security forces to provide law and order, and work to prevent terror," the statement issued by the American delegation said.
American officials voiced satisfaction with the Israeli "gestures." However, the sources said, Israel needs to do even more to make the Arabs' lives better.
Rice will meet Jordan's King Abdullah Sunday evening and will meet Prime Minister Olmert again Monday. She will then meet the heads of the Israeli and Arab negotiating teams, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Ahmed Qureia ("Abu Ala").
Opposition chairman Binyamin Netanyahu told U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Sunday that a permanent status arrangement with the PA that does not leave the IDF in charge of "large areas" of Judea and Samaria would lead to a Hamas takeover and the creation of additional Iranian bases there.
"We cannot transfer responsibility for security to subcontractors. Security needs to stay in the IDF and the security establishment. The practical way is an economic peace with the Palestinians," Netanyahu said after the meeting.
"If we abandon security to the care of others, we will receive rockets," the Likud chairman said. "We are the ones protecting Abu Mazen, he isn't protecting us."
Israeli diplomatic sources said Sunday that the American delegation was very surprised at the extent of Israeli concessions to the Fatah-controlled "Palestinian Authority" (PA) announced by Defense Minister Ehud Barak. However, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was quick to say that they were not enough, and vowed to monitor Israel's execution of its promises. The latest Israeli concessions to the PA in Judea and Samaria include permission for construction of two new Arab neighborhoods in the Ramallah area, with a total of 5,000 to 8,000 housing units. In addition, about 50 closed roads will be opened in Samaria, thus enabling vehicular traffic between Jenin, Tulkarm, Kalkilya and Ramallah. The permanent IDF checkpoint in the Rimonim area will be removed.
Barak announced the decisions in the meeting he held with PA "Prime Minister" Salam Fayyad and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Sunday.
Rice Talks Tough About Israeli Compliance
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had some tough words for Israel Sunday regarding the "gestures" Israel has undertaken to carry out in Judea and Samaria.
"We will monitor exactly what the Israelis do and the purpose is to improve the Palestinians' freedom of movement," Rice said. "We want to be much more systematic about what is promised and what is
"We want to be much more systematic about what is promised and what is actually carried out," Rice added.
actually carried out," she added.
American special envoy General William Fraser, Rice explained, will be following Israel's implementation of the Road Map closely "and making sure that the road blocks are indeed removed and that this has an impact on the Palestinians' freedom of movement." Before Fraser arrived, she said, "we did not do this, and we received promises that the Israeli steps would be carried out within a short time. I expect this to happen very soon."
25 APCs, 125 more vehicles
The Israeli concessions also included the following:
1. PA para-military police stations will open in some areas under joint Israeli and PA control.
2. 700 PA police personnel will be deployed in the Jenin area, once they return from training in Jordan. Ultimate security responsibility will remain in Israel's hands.
3. Additional roadblocks and checkpoints in Judea and Samaria are to be removed by mid-May.
4. 25 APC's – out of 50 originally requested – and 125 additional vehicles and pieces of logistical equipment will be delivered to PA/Fatah hands.
5. Various restrictions on the movement of public figures will be eased.
6. Various restrictions on the movement of businessmen will be eased.
7. An additional 5,000 permits will be issued for Arab construction workers in Israel (the current quota is approximately 18,500).
8. The Sha'ar Ephraim Crossing for will be opened for commercial activity on Fridays.
Two new Arab neighborhoods in the Ramallah area. In addition, about 50 dirt roadblocks in Samaria will be removed.
9. Israel will allow the passage of businessmen from Arab countries, the United Kingdom, Turkey, the PA and Israel on a VIP footing (without checks) through Ben-Gurion International Airport, for the Bethlehem Economic Conference for Investors in May. Israeli businessmen will be allowed to enter Bethlehem for the conference. Businessmen attending the conference will be allowed to move in organized groups in Judea and Samaria cities, and into Israel (including Jerusalem and Nazareth).
10. Industrial Zones will be established in Jericho, Hevron (Tarkumiyah) and Mukibla. The Tarkumiya Industrial Zone will receive Turkish financing. Another industrial zone will be established in Jericho for the processing and marketing abroad of PA agricultural produce. Japan and Jordan will be involved in this project.
A statement issued after the talks said that "the parties have completed connection of 27 Palestinian villages in [Judea and Samaria] to the Israeli power grid and, in an unprecedented action, have connected Jericho to the Jordan power grid."
PA will 'work' against terror
The agreements reached in the talks between Rice, Barak and Fayyad include only one commitment by the PA. "For its part, the Palestinian Authority will deploy security forces to provide law and order, and work to prevent terror," the statement issued by the American delegation said.
American officials voiced satisfaction with the Israeli "gestures." However, the sources said, Israel needs to do even more to make the Arabs' lives better.
Rice will meet Jordan's King Abdullah Sunday evening and will meet Prime Minister Olmert again Monday. She will then meet the heads of the Israeli and Arab negotiating teams, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Ahmed Qureia ("Abu Ala").
Opposition chairman Binyamin Netanyahu told U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Sunday that a permanent status arrangement with the PA that does not leave the IDF in charge of "large areas" of Judea and Samaria would lead to a Hamas takeover and the creation of additional Iranian bases there.
"We cannot transfer responsibility for security to subcontractors. Security needs to stay in the IDF and the security establishment. The practical way is an economic peace with the Palestinians," Netanyahu said after the meeting.
"If we abandon security to the care of others, we will receive rockets," the Likud chairman said. "We are the ones protecting Abu Mazen, he isn't protecting us."
This is a Cultural/Religious War
Ted Belman
Moshe Feiglin was in New York on 9/11. Two weeks later he wrote this profound article, Why America Has Already Lost the War.
For him it was a cultural/religious war. The same war that Israel had been fighting for a century and losing. Islam destroyed the greatest symbol of the West, he wrote, namely the Twin Towers and nothing less would do but to destroy Mecca, Medina and al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.
Instead America organized a mighty coalition to go after cave dwellers in Afghanistan, hornets if you will, while ignoring the nest. It even called the religion, that has been at war with Christianity since its inception, and in whose name the Twin Towers were destroyed, a "religion of peace". It seeks to accommodate its mortal enemy rather than destroy it.. The "peace process" is aimed at destroying Judaism's symbols, in that it seeks to remove from Jewish sovereignty its biblical heartland and Jerusalem. What will be left?
He explained the conflict,
Two deviant daughters came forth from Judaism but left the fold to conquer the world: Christianity and Islam. Both hate their mother and both fight each other.
Judaism integrates the qualities of strict justice and mercy, in harmony and in proper measure. Christianity took only the quality of mercy while Islam took the quality of strict justice.
The Moslems see with jealousy how the culture based on Christian mercy succeeds in gaining control over the world. Let everyone come and benefit from the cornucopia open to all — to everyone we proffer the other cheek, and the whole body, in fact. Come and take your part in the wealth, come and enter the gates of the World Trade Center. We aren’t conquering you with the sword, but with gold.
Please think about what he has written and then comment on Israpundit.
If you disagree with his thesis' please explain how the west is to win and what winning means.
Ted Belman
Moshe Feiglin was in New York on 9/11. Two weeks later he wrote this profound article, Why America Has Already Lost the War.
For him it was a cultural/religious war. The same war that Israel had been fighting for a century and losing. Islam destroyed the greatest symbol of the West, he wrote, namely the Twin Towers and nothing less would do but to destroy Mecca, Medina and al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.
Instead America organized a mighty coalition to go after cave dwellers in Afghanistan, hornets if you will, while ignoring the nest. It even called the religion, that has been at war with Christianity since its inception, and in whose name the Twin Towers were destroyed, a "religion of peace". It seeks to accommodate its mortal enemy rather than destroy it.. The "peace process" is aimed at destroying Judaism's symbols, in that it seeks to remove from Jewish sovereignty its biblical heartland and Jerusalem. What will be left?
He explained the conflict,
Two deviant daughters came forth from Judaism but left the fold to conquer the world: Christianity and Islam. Both hate their mother and both fight each other.
Judaism integrates the qualities of strict justice and mercy, in harmony and in proper measure. Christianity took only the quality of mercy while Islam took the quality of strict justice.
The Moslems see with jealousy how the culture based on Christian mercy succeeds in gaining control over the world. Let everyone come and benefit from the cornucopia open to all — to everyone we proffer the other cheek, and the whole body, in fact. Come and take your part in the wealth, come and enter the gates of the World Trade Center. We aren’t conquering you with the sword, but with gold.
Please think about what he has written and then comment on Israpundit.
If you disagree with his thesis' please explain how the west is to win and what winning means.
Ted Belman
"Deplorable"
Arlene Kushner
Well, it was unlikely that Rice, who is here, would have readily walked away without further concessions from Israel for the sake of the "peace process." Some concessions, of some sort, from our craven, appeasing government. But what has taken place is above and beyond.
After Rice met with Defense Minister Barak and PA Prime Minister Fayyad here in Jerusalem, she actually said she was "amazed" by the gestures being advanced by Israel. I don't wonder at her amazement, as this sort of one-sided, tushy-kissing effort to be nice to an entity that in fact wishes us gone is quite breath-taking. But, rather than being "amazed," I'm just plain shocked. And outraged.
Rice announced that a number of concrete actions will be taken to improve the situation.
~~~~~~~~~~Take a deep breath before reading this list of Barak's major offers:
[] The establishment of a Palestinian city (or series of neighborhoods) north of the town of al-Bireh, outside of Ramallah, to be paid for by a Jordanian businessman, to alleviate housing shortages in the Ramallah area. It would house tens of thousands of Palestinians.
This strikes me as most offensive of all. After the PA screams bloody murder about building a few hundred units in existing communities, and just one day after Abbas lied about this and said we were doing unprecedented building, we make this offer?
[] Increasing the number of laborers allowed into Israel to 5,000.
[] Taking down one checkpoint and 50 roadblocks, in order to ease the movement of Palestinians between the cities of Jenin, Tulkarm, Kalkilya and Ramallah.
As I remember, these roadblocks went up because easy movement between these cities allowed weapons to be transported.
[] Easing of restrictions on Palestinian public figures.
But just about a week ago that a Palestinian official was caught smuggling large numbers of phones from Jordan.
[] Easing security checks for Palestinian businessmen.
Of course, a businessman would never aid a terrorist.
Barak further suggested:
[] Upgrading the infrastructure for aiding the Palestinians waiting at the crossings, the cost of which is estimated at NIS 8.3 million.
[] Transferring 325 cars and logistic equipment from the IDF to the Palestinian security organizations, including generators, blankets and first aid kits.
~~~~~~~~~~
I have on occasion commented that our leaders who take such actions are crazy. But I've been cautioned by some readers to avoid saying that, because truly crazy people are absolved of responsibility for their actions -- and the comment is on the mark.
What I will say, instead, is that this is very sick, but that Barak remains fully responsible for his decisions.
~~~~~~~~~~
You may be wondering what the PA will be offering in all of this. After all, Fayyad and Barak met together to put forward suggests to improve the situation.
Well, it was agreed that the Palestinians security forces must assume "greater responsibility."
I did not note a precise delineation of responsibility for what.
They also agreed to step up efforts to "prevent terror."
Again, that vagueness. Nothing that could be quantified or measured -- the way Barak's promises on taking down 50 roadblocks or allowing 5,000 laborers into Israel can be measured.
I heard tonight, by the way, from a very reliable source that Rice said today that the US would be watching Israel closely to see that these commitments were honored.
But the Palestinians? Hey, they can say they made an effort to prevent terror, they gave it their best.
~~~~~~~~~~
And Fayyad? This particular son of a bitch refused to make a public statement with Olmert and Rice. Take all that's offered, but not be seen to be too close to Israeli leader, who is an enemy of Palestine, after all. The photo op would not have served him in the street, which admires Hamas.
~~~~~~~~~~
And as if this is not bad enough, Barak and Olmert are making gestures to Syria regarding resuming peace negotiations.
From a military perspective this is a disaster. I heard Maj. Gen (res) Yaakov Amidror -- former Commander of the IDF's National Defense College and currently with the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs -- speak on a panel sponsored by Likud Anglo tonight. As Syria's demand for peace is return of the Golan Heights, his assessment was that negotiating peace with Syria might mean we would ultimately find ourselves fighting Iranians in the Galil.
Another panel member, Dan Diker -- Director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs and a Senior Foreign Policy Analyst at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs -- made this incisive observation: Timing is everything. We have just seen that heads of major Arab countries are snubbing Syria by not participating in the conference in Damascus. And now? Now is the time we pick to undercut that message and confer legitimacy on Syria by reaching out to Assad?
A theme of this panel was the recognition that concessions don't work. Israel, in 1993, had the notion that the more we gave the more the world would respect us. But the reverse has happened, as the world has lost respect for us and has stopped understanding that we have legitimate rights in this land. As we fail to stand up for ourselves, it is the Palestinian narrative that is being internalized internationally.
~~~~~~~~~~
One last comment before closing: I heard it tonight from an American with major contacts (as I've hard it before from an international lawyer here with Washington DC connections): Rice is running the show, and she's doing the work of Saudi Arabia. But Bush's attitude towards Israel is not the same as Rice's. He is being seriously misled: By Rice, whom he trusts, and by the PA leaders, whose lovely words of peace he trusts, and by the Israeli leaders, who tell him how much we're willing to give up.
It may be futile. But it must be attempted at every juncture, calling on every possible political contact, sending every possible message: Bush needs to be provided with the realities.
Well, it was unlikely that Rice, who is here, would have readily walked away without further concessions from Israel for the sake of the "peace process." Some concessions, of some sort, from our craven, appeasing government. But what has taken place is above and beyond.
After Rice met with Defense Minister Barak and PA Prime Minister Fayyad here in Jerusalem, she actually said she was "amazed" by the gestures being advanced by Israel. I don't wonder at her amazement, as this sort of one-sided, tushy-kissing effort to be nice to an entity that in fact wishes us gone is quite breath-taking. But, rather than being "amazed," I'm just plain shocked. And outraged.
Rice announced that a number of concrete actions will be taken to improve the situation.
~~~~~~~~~~Take a deep breath before reading this list of Barak's major offers:
[] The establishment of a Palestinian city (or series of neighborhoods) north of the town of al-Bireh, outside of Ramallah, to be paid for by a Jordanian businessman, to alleviate housing shortages in the Ramallah area. It would house tens of thousands of Palestinians.
This strikes me as most offensive of all. After the PA screams bloody murder about building a few hundred units in existing communities, and just one day after Abbas lied about this and said we were doing unprecedented building, we make this offer?
[] Increasing the number of laborers allowed into Israel to 5,000.
[] Taking down one checkpoint and 50 roadblocks, in order to ease the movement of Palestinians between the cities of Jenin, Tulkarm, Kalkilya and Ramallah.
As I remember, these roadblocks went up because easy movement between these cities allowed weapons to be transported.
[] Easing of restrictions on Palestinian public figures.
But just about a week ago that a Palestinian official was caught smuggling large numbers of phones from Jordan.
[] Easing security checks for Palestinian businessmen.
Of course, a businessman would never aid a terrorist.
Barak further suggested:
[] Upgrading the infrastructure for aiding the Palestinians waiting at the crossings, the cost of which is estimated at NIS 8.3 million.
[] Transferring 325 cars and logistic equipment from the IDF to the Palestinian security organizations, including generators, blankets and first aid kits.
~~~~~~~~~~
I have on occasion commented that our leaders who take such actions are crazy. But I've been cautioned by some readers to avoid saying that, because truly crazy people are absolved of responsibility for their actions -- and the comment is on the mark.
What I will say, instead, is that this is very sick, but that Barak remains fully responsible for his decisions.
~~~~~~~~~~
You may be wondering what the PA will be offering in all of this. After all, Fayyad and Barak met together to put forward suggests to improve the situation.
Well, it was agreed that the Palestinians security forces must assume "greater responsibility."
I did not note a precise delineation of responsibility for what.
They also agreed to step up efforts to "prevent terror."
Again, that vagueness. Nothing that could be quantified or measured -- the way Barak's promises on taking down 50 roadblocks or allowing 5,000 laborers into Israel can be measured.
I heard tonight, by the way, from a very reliable source that Rice said today that the US would be watching Israel closely to see that these commitments were honored.
But the Palestinians? Hey, they can say they made an effort to prevent terror, they gave it their best.
~~~~~~~~~~
And Fayyad? This particular son of a bitch refused to make a public statement with Olmert and Rice. Take all that's offered, but not be seen to be too close to Israeli leader, who is an enemy of Palestine, after all. The photo op would not have served him in the street, which admires Hamas.
~~~~~~~~~~
And as if this is not bad enough, Barak and Olmert are making gestures to Syria regarding resuming peace negotiations.
From a military perspective this is a disaster. I heard Maj. Gen (res) Yaakov Amidror -- former Commander of the IDF's National Defense College and currently with the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs -- speak on a panel sponsored by Likud Anglo tonight. As Syria's demand for peace is return of the Golan Heights, his assessment was that negotiating peace with Syria might mean we would ultimately find ourselves fighting Iranians in the Galil.
Another panel member, Dan Diker -- Director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs and a Senior Foreign Policy Analyst at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs -- made this incisive observation: Timing is everything. We have just seen that heads of major Arab countries are snubbing Syria by not participating in the conference in Damascus. And now? Now is the time we pick to undercut that message and confer legitimacy on Syria by reaching out to Assad?
A theme of this panel was the recognition that concessions don't work. Israel, in 1993, had the notion that the more we gave the more the world would respect us. But the reverse has happened, as the world has lost respect for us and has stopped understanding that we have legitimate rights in this land. As we fail to stand up for ourselves, it is the Palestinian narrative that is being internalized internationally.
~~~~~~~~~~
One last comment before closing: I heard it tonight from an American with major contacts (as I've hard it before from an international lawyer here with Washington DC connections): Rice is running the show, and she's doing the work of Saudi Arabia. But Bush's attitude towards Israel is not the same as Rice's. He is being seriously misled: By Rice, whom he trusts, and by the PA leaders, whose lovely words of peace he trusts, and by the Israeli leaders, who tell him how much we're willing to give up.
It may be futile. But it must be attempted at every juncture, calling on every possible political contact, sending every possible message: Bush needs to be provided with the realities.
SUE CONDI IN CIVIL COURT?
Emanuel A. Winston, Mid East Commentator & Analyst
According to Kol Yisrael radio news at 3 PM Israel time, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is insisting that Israel remove 50 checkpoints set up to catch Terrorists. As of 3:30 PM, Israel had accepted these demands. This will certainly result in more Terrorists getting through, more Terrorist attacks, more deaths and maimings.
The question is: Can Condoleezza Rice, personally, be sued for causing more deaths? What if those killed include Americans? How about other English speakers?
Would British, Canadians or Australians also rate? After the recent massacre of eight youngsters at a Jerusalem Yeshiva by a Muslim Arab-Israeli, a poll of Khalil Shilkaki, cited in the New York Times of March 19, 2008, found that 84%(!) of Muslim Arab Palestinians in Judea and Samaria supported the massacre! Yet, these are the very people who Condoleezza Rice wishes to permit easier movement - allowing them and their supporters to carry out more Terror attacks.
Common sense would dictate that these massacre supporters be placed under permanent curfew, allowed out at certain supervised hours - while being checked for guns and explosives - than with the lives of those who may be killed as a direct result of her policies.
###
from: "Andy" Following is a complete (so far) list of the "concessions" and "appeasements" Olmert, Livni and Barak have agreed to:
(Communicated by the Prime Minister's Media Adviser)
Defense Minister Ehud Barak today (Sunday), 30.3.08, met with US Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice, at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. The two first met privately; later, they were joined by their delegations. Following the meeting, Defense Minister Barak held a 3-way meeting with Sec. of State Rice and Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, at which the three discussed various regional, diplomatic and security issues. Defense Minister also presented a package regarding the easing of various restrictions on the Palestinians, which he approved last week as follows:
Easing of Security Restrictions (fabric of life, law and order)
1. Approximately 50 dirt roadblocks will be removed thus enabling vehicular traffic between Jenin, Tulkarem, Kalkilya and Ramallah.
2. Opening of the permanent checkpoint in the Rimonim area.
3. Approval for the establishment of Palestinian police stations in B and B+ areas in order to promote law and order, after a comprehensive picture of deployments in Judea and Samaria will have been presented.
4. Deployment of 700 police personnel in the Jenin area (following their return from training in Jordan). Ultimate security responsibility will remain in Israel's hands.
5. Mechanisms for issuing action permits for Palestinian forces for movement to B areas and for movement across brigade areas, in order to better deal with law and order, will be improved.
6. An inquiry into lifting additional roadblocks and checkpoints in Judea and Samaria will be carried out in the coming weeks, with the intention of completion by mid-May.
7. The delivery of 25 APC's – out of 50 – was approved.
8. The delivery of 125 vehicles and pieces of logistical equipment for the Palestinian security forces has been approved.
9. Approval of non-lethal equipment for the Presidential Guard is under consideration.
10. Various restrictions on the movement of public figures have been eased.
Easing of Restrictions on Businessmen
11. Various restrictions on the movement of businessmen have been eased.
12. Maximum assistance will be rendered vis- -vis the 21-23.5.08 business conference in Bethlehem.
13. A senior Coordinator of Activities in the Territories officer has been appointed to deal with all issues involving the conference.
Increase of Employment in Israel
14. An additional 5,000 permits will be issued for construction work in Israel (the current quota is approximately 18,500).
Easing of Restrictions at Crossings (fabric of life)
15. Opening of the Sha'ar Ephraim Crossing for commercial activity on Fridays (immediate implementation).
16. Easing of pressure at the Kalandia and Rachel crossings by diverting prisoners' visits to the Beituniya Crossing.
17. Upgrading biometric procedures.
18. Upgrading the humanitarian infrastructure at crossings.
21-23.5.08 Bethlehem Economic Conference for Investors
A. To allow the passage of businessmen from Arab countries, the United Kingdom, Turkey, the Palestinian Authority and Israel on a VIP footing (without checks) at Ben-Gurion International Airport, the Allenby Bridge, internal crossings (especially in the Jerusalem area), as per the lists and pre-screening.
B. Israeli businessmen will be allowed to enter Bethlehem for the conference.
C. Approval has been given for the organized movement of businessmen in Judea and Samaria cities and into Israel (including Jerusalem and Nazareth).
D. Hours at the Allenby Crossing will be extended to 24:00 on 20.5.08 and 24.5.08.
Advancing the Establishment of Industrial Zones in Jericho, Hebron and Mukibla
A. The Tarkumiya Industrial Zone in the Hebron District – the goal is to move the "Ankara idea" from the Erez Industrial Zone to Judea and Samaria. The zone will received Turkish financing.
B. An industrial zone will be established for the processing and marketing abroad of Palestinian agricultural produce. The Japanese industrial zone in Jericho will be established close to the city. Japan, the Japanese International Cooperation Agency and Jordan will be involved.
According to Kol Yisrael radio news at 3 PM Israel time, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is insisting that Israel remove 50 checkpoints set up to catch Terrorists. As of 3:30 PM, Israel had accepted these demands. This will certainly result in more Terrorists getting through, more Terrorist attacks, more deaths and maimings.
The question is: Can Condoleezza Rice, personally, be sued for causing more deaths? What if those killed include Americans? How about other English speakers?
Would British, Canadians or Australians also rate? After the recent massacre of eight youngsters at a Jerusalem Yeshiva by a Muslim Arab-Israeli, a poll of Khalil Shilkaki, cited in the New York Times of March 19, 2008, found that 84%(!) of Muslim Arab Palestinians in Judea and Samaria supported the massacre! Yet, these are the very people who Condoleezza Rice wishes to permit easier movement - allowing them and their supporters to carry out more Terror attacks.
Common sense would dictate that these massacre supporters be placed under permanent curfew, allowed out at certain supervised hours - while being checked for guns and explosives - than with the lives of those who may be killed as a direct result of her policies.
###
from: "Andy"
(Communicated by the Prime Minister's Media Adviser)
Defense Minister Ehud Barak today (Sunday), 30.3.08, met with US Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice, at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. The two first met privately; later, they were joined by their delegations. Following the meeting, Defense Minister Barak held a 3-way meeting with Sec. of State Rice and Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, at which the three discussed various regional, diplomatic and security issues. Defense Minister also presented a package regarding the easing of various restrictions on the Palestinians, which he approved last week as follows:
Easing of Security Restrictions (fabric of life, law and order)
1. Approximately 50 dirt roadblocks will be removed thus enabling vehicular traffic between Jenin, Tulkarem, Kalkilya and Ramallah.
2. Opening of the permanent checkpoint in the Rimonim area.
3. Approval for the establishment of Palestinian police stations in B and B+ areas in order to promote law and order, after a comprehensive picture of deployments in Judea and Samaria will have been presented.
4. Deployment of 700 police personnel in the Jenin area (following their return from training in Jordan). Ultimate security responsibility will remain in Israel's hands.
5. Mechanisms for issuing action permits for Palestinian forces for movement to B areas and for movement across brigade areas, in order to better deal with law and order, will be improved.
6. An inquiry into lifting additional roadblocks and checkpoints in Judea and Samaria will be carried out in the coming weeks, with the intention of completion by mid-May.
7. The delivery of 25 APC's – out of 50 – was approved.
8. The delivery of 125 vehicles and pieces of logistical equipment for the Palestinian security forces has been approved.
9. Approval of non-lethal equipment for the Presidential Guard is under consideration.
10. Various restrictions on the movement of public figures have been eased.
Easing of Restrictions on Businessmen
11. Various restrictions on the movement of businessmen have been eased.
12. Maximum assistance will be rendered vis- -vis the 21-23.5.08 business conference in Bethlehem.
13. A senior Coordinator of Activities in the Territories officer has been appointed to deal with all issues involving the conference.
Increase of Employment in Israel
14. An additional 5,000 permits will be issued for construction work in Israel (the current quota is approximately 18,500).
Easing of Restrictions at Crossings (fabric of life)
15. Opening of the Sha'ar Ephraim Crossing for commercial activity on Fridays (immediate implementation).
16. Easing of pressure at the Kalandia and Rachel crossings by diverting prisoners' visits to the Beituniya Crossing.
17. Upgrading biometric procedures.
18. Upgrading the humanitarian infrastructure at crossings.
21-23.5.08 Bethlehem Economic Conference for Investors
A. To allow the passage of businessmen from Arab countries, the United Kingdom, Turkey, the Palestinian Authority and Israel on a VIP footing (without checks) at Ben-Gurion International Airport, the Allenby Bridge, internal crossings (especially in the Jerusalem area), as per the lists and pre-screening.
B. Israeli businessmen will be allowed to enter Bethlehem for the conference.
C. Approval has been given for the organized movement of businessmen in Judea and Samaria cities and into Israel (including Jerusalem and Nazareth).
D. Hours at the Allenby Crossing will be extended to 24:00 on 20.5.08 and 24.5.08.
Advancing the Establishment of Industrial Zones in Jericho, Hebron and Mukibla
A. The Tarkumiya Industrial Zone in the Hebron District – the goal is to move the "Ankara idea" from the Erez Industrial Zone to Judea and Samaria. The zone will received Turkish financing.
B. An industrial zone will be established for the processing and marketing abroad of Palestinian agricultural produce. The Japanese industrial zone in Jericho will be established close to the city. Japan, the Japanese International Cooperation Agency and Jordan will be involved.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Shiite Leader al-Sadr Defies Iraq Gov't
Arab Media
BAGHDAD, (AP) - Anti-American Shiite militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr ordered his followers Saturday to defy government orders to surrender their weapons, as U.S. jets struck Shiite extremists near Basra to bolster a faltering Iraqi offensive against gunmen in the city.
Comment: The real test for "The surge" has begunPrime Minister Nouri al-Maliki acknowledged he may have miscalculated by failing to foresee the strong backlash that his offensive, which began Tuesday, provoked in areas of Baghdad and other cities where Shiite militias wield power.
Government television said the round-the-clock curfew imposed two days ago on the capital and due to expire Sunday would be extended indefinitely. Gunfire and explosions were heard late Saturday in Sadr City, the Baghdad stronghold of al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia.
The U.S. Embassy tightened its security measures, ordering all staff to use armored vehicles for all travel in the Green Zone and to sleep in reinforced buildings until further notice after six days of rocket and mortar attacks that left two Americans dead.
Despite the mounting crisis, al-Maliki, himself a Shiite, vowed to remain in Basra until government forces wrest control from militias, including the Mahdi Army. He called the fight for control of Basra "a decisive and final battle."
British ground troops, who controlled the city until handing it over to the Iraqis last December, also joined the battle for Basra, firing artillery Saturday for the first time in support of Iraqi forces.
Iraqi authorities have given Basra extremists until April 8 to surrender heavy and medium weapons after an initial 72-hour ultimatum to hand them over was widely ignored.
But a defiant al-Sadr called on his followers Saturday to ignore the order, saying that his Mahdi Army would turn in its weapons only to a government that can "get the occupier out of Iraq," referring to the Americans.
The order was made public by Haidar al-Jabiri, a member of the influential political commission of the Sadrist movement.
Al-Sadr, in an interview aired Saturday by Al-Jazeera television, said his Mahdi Army was capable of "liberating Iraq" and maintained al-Maliki's government was as "distant" from the people as Saddam Hussein's.
Residents of Basra contacted by telephone said Mahdi militiamen were manning checkpoints Saturday in their neighborhood strongholds. The sound of intermittent mortar and machine gun fire rang out across the city, as the military headquarters at a downtown hotel came under repeated fire.
An Iraqi army battalion commander and two of his bodyguards were killed Saturday night by a roadside bomb in central Basra, military spokesman Col. Karim al-Zaidi said.
The fight for Basra is crucial for al-Maliki, who flew to Basra earlier this week and is staking his credibility on gaining control of Iraq's second-largest city, which has essentially been held by armed groups for nearly three years.
In a speech Saturday to tribal leaders in Basra, al-Maliki promised to "stand up to these gangs" not only in the south but throughout Iraq.
Iraqi officials and their American partners have long insisted that the crackdown was not directed at al-Sadr's movement but against criminals and renegade factions — some of whom are allegedly tied to Iran.
Al-Maliki told tribal leaders that the offensive in Basra "was only to deal with these gangs" — some of which he said "are worse than al-Qaida."
Without mentioning the Sadrists by name, al-Maliki said he was "surprised to see that party emerge with all the weapons available to it and strike at everything — institutions, people, departments, police stations and the army."
Al-Sadr's followers have accused rival Shiite parties in the national government of trying to crush their movement before provincial elections this fall. The young cleric's lieutenants had warned repeatedly that any move to dislodge them from Basra would provoke bloodshed.
But al-Maliki's comments appeared to reinforce suspicions that his government failed to foresee the backlash, including a sharp upsurge in violence throughout the Shiite south and shelling of the U.S.-controlled Green Zone, the nerve center of the Iraqi leadership and the U.S. mission.
Two American soldiers were killed Saturday when their vehicle was struck by a roadside bomb in mostly Shiite east Baghdad, the U.S. military said.
The growing turmoil threatens to undermine White House efforts to convince a skeptical Congress and the American public that the Iraqis are making progress toward managing their own security without the presence of U.S. troops.
With the Shiite militiamen defiant, a group of police in Sadr City abandoned their posts and handed over their weapons to al-Sadr's local office. Police forces in Baghdad are believed to be heavily influenced or infiltrated by Mahdi militiamen.
"We can't fight our brothers in the Mahdi Army, so we came here to submit our weapons," one policeman said on condition of anonymity for security reasons.
He said about 40 policemen had defected to the Mahdi Army. The figure could not be confirmed, but AP Television News footage showed about a dozen uniformed police, their faces covered with masks to shield their identity, being met by Sheik Salman al-Feraiji, al-Sadr's chief representative in Sadr City.
Al-Feraiji greeted each policeman and gave them a copy of the Quran and an olive branch as they handed over their guns and ammunition.
Also Saturday, the U.S. military said 16 enemy fighters had been killed in airstrikes supporting Iraqi troops during clashes with Shiite militiamen in Basra. An AC-130 gunship strafed heavily armed militants attacking Iraqi forces from three rooftops, military spokesman Maj. Brad Leighton said.
Iraqi police earlier claimed eight civilians, including two women and a child, had been killed when a U.S. warplane destroyed a house early Saturday. They spoke on condition of anonymity as they were not authorized to release the information.
But Leighton said U.S. special operations forces helped identify the militants before the airstrike.
British military spokesman Maj. Tom Holloway also said U.S. jets later dropped two precision-guided bombs on a suspected militia stronghold north of the city, but no casualties were reported.
Iraq's Health Ministry, which is close to the Sadrist movement, on Saturday reported at least 75 civilians have been killed and at least 500 others injured in a week of clashes and airstrikes in Sadr City and other eastern Baghdad neighborhoods.
The U.S. military sharply disputes the claims, having said that most of those killed were militia members.
Meanwhile, Iraqi officials said they had received a phone call from Tahseen Sheikhly, the high-profile civilian spokesman for the Baghdad security operation, who was seized by gunmen two days earlier from at his home in a Shiite area of the capital.
An Iraqi-owned satellite television station, Sharqiya, broadcast what it said was a tape of the conversation, in which a man identifying himself as Sheikhly said he was being held "with a group of officers" at an unknown location.
"Our release depends on the withdrawal of al-Maliki from Basra and the easing of the military operations against the Sadrists in all provinces," he said. "We appeal to the prime minister and the Iraqi government to work with the Sadrist movement, which represents the popular base of society."
BAGHDAD, (AP) - Anti-American Shiite militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr ordered his followers Saturday to defy government orders to surrender their weapons, as U.S. jets struck Shiite extremists near Basra to bolster a faltering Iraqi offensive against gunmen in the city.
Comment: The real test for "The surge" has begunPrime Minister Nouri al-Maliki acknowledged he may have miscalculated by failing to foresee the strong backlash that his offensive, which began Tuesday, provoked in areas of Baghdad and other cities where Shiite militias wield power.
Government television said the round-the-clock curfew imposed two days ago on the capital and due to expire Sunday would be extended indefinitely. Gunfire and explosions were heard late Saturday in Sadr City, the Baghdad stronghold of al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia.
The U.S. Embassy tightened its security measures, ordering all staff to use armored vehicles for all travel in the Green Zone and to sleep in reinforced buildings until further notice after six days of rocket and mortar attacks that left two Americans dead.
Despite the mounting crisis, al-Maliki, himself a Shiite, vowed to remain in Basra until government forces wrest control from militias, including the Mahdi Army. He called the fight for control of Basra "a decisive and final battle."
British ground troops, who controlled the city until handing it over to the Iraqis last December, also joined the battle for Basra, firing artillery Saturday for the first time in support of Iraqi forces.
Iraqi authorities have given Basra extremists until April 8 to surrender heavy and medium weapons after an initial 72-hour ultimatum to hand them over was widely ignored.
But a defiant al-Sadr called on his followers Saturday to ignore the order, saying that his Mahdi Army would turn in its weapons only to a government that can "get the occupier out of Iraq," referring to the Americans.
The order was made public by Haidar al-Jabiri, a member of the influential political commission of the Sadrist movement.
Al-Sadr, in an interview aired Saturday by Al-Jazeera television, said his Mahdi Army was capable of "liberating Iraq" and maintained al-Maliki's government was as "distant" from the people as Saddam Hussein's.
Residents of Basra contacted by telephone said Mahdi militiamen were manning checkpoints Saturday in their neighborhood strongholds. The sound of intermittent mortar and machine gun fire rang out across the city, as the military headquarters at a downtown hotel came under repeated fire.
An Iraqi army battalion commander and two of his bodyguards were killed Saturday night by a roadside bomb in central Basra, military spokesman Col. Karim al-Zaidi said.
The fight for Basra is crucial for al-Maliki, who flew to Basra earlier this week and is staking his credibility on gaining control of Iraq's second-largest city, which has essentially been held by armed groups for nearly three years.
In a speech Saturday to tribal leaders in Basra, al-Maliki promised to "stand up to these gangs" not only in the south but throughout Iraq.
Iraqi officials and their American partners have long insisted that the crackdown was not directed at al-Sadr's movement but against criminals and renegade factions — some of whom are allegedly tied to Iran.
Al-Maliki told tribal leaders that the offensive in Basra "was only to deal with these gangs" — some of which he said "are worse than al-Qaida."
Without mentioning the Sadrists by name, al-Maliki said he was "surprised to see that party emerge with all the weapons available to it and strike at everything — institutions, people, departments, police stations and the army."
Al-Sadr's followers have accused rival Shiite parties in the national government of trying to crush their movement before provincial elections this fall. The young cleric's lieutenants had warned repeatedly that any move to dislodge them from Basra would provoke bloodshed.
But al-Maliki's comments appeared to reinforce suspicions that his government failed to foresee the backlash, including a sharp upsurge in violence throughout the Shiite south and shelling of the U.S.-controlled Green Zone, the nerve center of the Iraqi leadership and the U.S. mission.
Two American soldiers were killed Saturday when their vehicle was struck by a roadside bomb in mostly Shiite east Baghdad, the U.S. military said.
The growing turmoil threatens to undermine White House efforts to convince a skeptical Congress and the American public that the Iraqis are making progress toward managing their own security without the presence of U.S. troops.
With the Shiite militiamen defiant, a group of police in Sadr City abandoned their posts and handed over their weapons to al-Sadr's local office. Police forces in Baghdad are believed to be heavily influenced or infiltrated by Mahdi militiamen.
"We can't fight our brothers in the Mahdi Army, so we came here to submit our weapons," one policeman said on condition of anonymity for security reasons.
He said about 40 policemen had defected to the Mahdi Army. The figure could not be confirmed, but AP Television News footage showed about a dozen uniformed police, their faces covered with masks to shield their identity, being met by Sheik Salman al-Feraiji, al-Sadr's chief representative in Sadr City.
Al-Feraiji greeted each policeman and gave them a copy of the Quran and an olive branch as they handed over their guns and ammunition.
Also Saturday, the U.S. military said 16 enemy fighters had been killed in airstrikes supporting Iraqi troops during clashes with Shiite militiamen in Basra. An AC-130 gunship strafed heavily armed militants attacking Iraqi forces from three rooftops, military spokesman Maj. Brad Leighton said.
Iraqi police earlier claimed eight civilians, including two women and a child, had been killed when a U.S. warplane destroyed a house early Saturday. They spoke on condition of anonymity as they were not authorized to release the information.
But Leighton said U.S. special operations forces helped identify the militants before the airstrike.
British military spokesman Maj. Tom Holloway also said U.S. jets later dropped two precision-guided bombs on a suspected militia stronghold north of the city, but no casualties were reported.
Iraq's Health Ministry, which is close to the Sadrist movement, on Saturday reported at least 75 civilians have been killed and at least 500 others injured in a week of clashes and airstrikes in Sadr City and other eastern Baghdad neighborhoods.
The U.S. military sharply disputes the claims, having said that most of those killed were militia members.
Meanwhile, Iraqi officials said they had received a phone call from Tahseen Sheikhly, the high-profile civilian spokesman for the Baghdad security operation, who was seized by gunmen two days earlier from at his home in a Shiite area of the capital.
An Iraqi-owned satellite television station, Sharqiya, broadcast what it said was a tape of the conversation, in which a man identifying himself as Sheikhly said he was being held "with a group of officers" at an unknown location.
"Our release depends on the withdrawal of al-Maliki from Basra and the easing of the military operations against the Sadrists in all provinces," he said. "We appeal to the prime minister and the Iraqi government to work with the Sadrist movement, which represents the popular base of society."
Justice Ministry Downgrades Ariel University to College
Hillel Fendel
The Justice Ministry has ruled that the Ariel College in Judea and Samaria must not call itself a University Center.
Though the institute "was upgraded to its present status as a University Center after undergoing the proper administrative and academic procedures," in the words of Ariel's Chairman of the Board Yigal Cohen-Orgad, the Justice Ministry found a technicality that appears to void the entire process. The Ariel University Center is located in the heartland of Samaria, and its upgrading is a matter of controversy between those who support a Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria, and those against.
The Ministry explained that Ariel must revert to calling itself a college, as it did until last year, because the sovereign entity in Judea and Samaria is the IDF and Civil Administration - which were not consulted and did not give their approval for the change. "Because this approval was not given, the name change is not approved," the Justice Ministry stated, accepting the stance of the Council for Higher Education.
Cohen-Orgad responds that just like colleges in mainland Israel do not require government approval for a name change, so too Ariel does not require the approval of the IDF/Civil Administration.
Nevertheless, the Justice Ministry warns that "if the college does not change its name [back to Ariel College], a suit to the Court for Procedural Matters will be considered, in accordance with the authority legally granted to the Attorney-General."
The Ariel College boasts the largest student body of all colleges in Israel, and the Council for Higher Education orginally had approved upgrading its status to a university.
Scientists' Council Approve University Status
Back in 2006, a council of six top scientists - including four Israel Prize winners and three members of the Israeli Academy for Science - analyzed the research and teaching activity in Ariel, and determined that it was already functioning almost totally like a university. The council, which had been appointed by then-Education Minister Limor Livnat, decided that the College should receive temporary recognition as a university for three years.
To finalize the new status, Ariel was charged with fulfilling certain tasks, such as increasing the number of different degrees it granted to four. This was accomplished in July 2007, Cohen-Orgad said.
Growth of School
Located in the city of Ariel, a bustling town of 17,000 people in the Samarian hills, the 26-year-old University Center continues to grow and diversify to "meet the new challenges of a burgeoning society with rapidly changing needs," its website states. It currently boasts 8,500 students from all over the country, including 70% coming from the greater Tel Aviv area and central Israel.
As a demonstratively Zionist institution, the University Center has two key requirements: every student must study one course per semester on some aspect of Judaism, Jewish heritage or Land of Israel studies, and the Israeli flag must be displayed in every classroom, laboratory and auditorium on campus.
The University Center offers undergraduate studies in a wide variety of subjects: Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering & Electronics, Chemical Engineering & Biotechnology, Industrial Engineering & Management, Mechanical Engineering, Architecture, Physiotherapy, Health Management, Nutrition, Medical Physics, Social Work, Behavioral Sciences, Economics & Business Management, Mass Communications, Israel & Middle Eastern Studies, Israel Heritage, General Studies (Humanities), Applied Physics, Molecular Biology, Biological Chemistry and Mathematics & Computer Science.
In the near future, Ariel University Center of Samaria will open additional undergraduate courses in Education, Communication Disabilities and Material Science.
Comment: Understand what is afoot!
The Justice Ministry has ruled that the Ariel College in Judea and Samaria must not call itself a University Center.
Though the institute "was upgraded to its present status as a University Center after undergoing the proper administrative and academic procedures," in the words of Ariel's Chairman of the Board Yigal Cohen-Orgad, the Justice Ministry found a technicality that appears to void the entire process. The Ariel University Center is located in the heartland of Samaria, and its upgrading is a matter of controversy between those who support a Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria, and those against.
The Ministry explained that Ariel must revert to calling itself a college, as it did until last year, because the sovereign entity in Judea and Samaria is the IDF and Civil Administration - which were not consulted and did not give their approval for the change. "Because this approval was not given, the name change is not approved," the Justice Ministry stated, accepting the stance of the Council for Higher Education.
Cohen-Orgad responds that just like colleges in mainland Israel do not require government approval for a name change, so too Ariel does not require the approval of the IDF/Civil Administration.
Nevertheless, the Justice Ministry warns that "if the college does not change its name [back to Ariel College], a suit to the Court for Procedural Matters will be considered, in accordance with the authority legally granted to the Attorney-General."
The Ariel College boasts the largest student body of all colleges in Israel, and the Council for Higher Education orginally had approved upgrading its status to a university.
Scientists' Council Approve University Status
Back in 2006, a council of six top scientists - including four Israel Prize winners and three members of the Israeli Academy for Science - analyzed the research and teaching activity in Ariel, and determined that it was already functioning almost totally like a university. The council, which had been appointed by then-Education Minister Limor Livnat, decided that the College should receive temporary recognition as a university for three years.
To finalize the new status, Ariel was charged with fulfilling certain tasks, such as increasing the number of different degrees it granted to four. This was accomplished in July 2007, Cohen-Orgad said.
Growth of School
Located in the city of Ariel, a bustling town of 17,000 people in the Samarian hills, the 26-year-old University Center continues to grow and diversify to "meet the new challenges of a burgeoning society with rapidly changing needs," its website states. It currently boasts 8,500 students from all over the country, including 70% coming from the greater Tel Aviv area and central Israel.
As a demonstratively Zionist institution, the University Center has two key requirements: every student must study one course per semester on some aspect of Judaism, Jewish heritage or Land of Israel studies, and the Israeli flag must be displayed in every classroom, laboratory and auditorium on campus.
The University Center offers undergraduate studies in a wide variety of subjects: Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering & Electronics, Chemical Engineering & Biotechnology, Industrial Engineering & Management, Mechanical Engineering, Architecture, Physiotherapy, Health Management, Nutrition, Medical Physics, Social Work, Behavioral Sciences, Economics & Business Management, Mass Communications, Israel & Middle Eastern Studies, Israel Heritage, General Studies (Humanities), Applied Physics, Molecular Biology, Biological Chemistry and Mathematics & Computer Science.
In the near future, Ariel University Center of Samaria will open additional undergraduate courses in Education, Communication Disabilities and Material Science.
Comment: Understand what is afoot!
Credibility? Validity of reports? Bias? Agenda driven selective reporting?You decide!
B'Tselem Justifies Killing of IDF Soldiers Wherever They Are
Ben Sha'ul
According to senior researcher Lt. Col. (res.) Jonathan Dahoah-Halevi, the left-wing group B’Tselem appears to justify the murder of Israeli soldiers. In an article published over the weekend, Dahoah-Halevi, a researcher with the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, points out that while B’Tselem condemns attacks on Israeli civilians, it has yet to condemn an attack on Israeli soldiers.
B’Tselem fails to condemn attacks on soldiers even when the soldiers in question are within pre-1967 Israel and are not involved in combat, Dahoah-Halevi said, such as the attack on an IDF patrol in 2006 in which soldier Gilad Shalit was kidnapped.
It appears that B’Tselem sees nothing wrong with terrorists’ attacks on military targets, he said, “and perhaps even more seriously, sees the terrorist groups as having the ‘right’ to kill Israeli soldiers indiscriminately in Israeli territory, this even after the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005.”
B’Tselem did not reply to requests to clarify its position regarding terror groups’ attacks on soldiers.
Ben Sha'ul
According to senior researcher Lt. Col. (res.) Jonathan Dahoah-Halevi, the left-wing group B’Tselem appears to justify the murder of Israeli soldiers. In an article published over the weekend, Dahoah-Halevi, a researcher with the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, points out that while B’Tselem condemns attacks on Israeli civilians, it has yet to condemn an attack on Israeli soldiers.
B’Tselem fails to condemn attacks on soldiers even when the soldiers in question are within pre-1967 Israel and are not involved in combat, Dahoah-Halevi said, such as the attack on an IDF patrol in 2006 in which soldier Gilad Shalit was kidnapped.
It appears that B’Tselem sees nothing wrong with terrorists’ attacks on military targets, he said, “and perhaps even more seriously, sees the terrorist groups as having the ‘right’ to kill Israeli soldiers indiscriminately in Israeli territory, this even after the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005.”
B’Tselem did not reply to requests to clarify its position regarding terror groups’ attacks on soldiers.
Barak Prepares Security Concessions for Rice
Hana Levi Julian
Israeli officials are planning additional “gestures” to ease restrictions on Palestinian Authority Arabs, according to Army Radio. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defense Minister Ehud Barak will discuss the plans with United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Sunday. The US Secretary of State arrived at Ben Gurion International Airport Saturday evening in another attempt to push the pace on talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Rice said Saturday that one of her goals in her current trip to the region was to convince Israel to ease travel for PA Arabs in Judea and Samaria.
Security officials said Israel will remove dozens of roadblocks in Judea and Samaria and will remove one or two checkpoints as well. PA Arabs will be granted free access to the Dead Sea, as the checkpoint between Jericho and the sea, in place since 2000, is removed. Senior PA businessmen will be granted reduced travel restrictions, and thousands more PA Arabs will be granted permits allowing them to work for Israeli employers.
PA police stations will also be established in mid-sized villages in Area B, under Israeli security control and PA administrative control.
Rice met with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert Saturday night over dinner to discuss the main issues on which she plans to focus this time around.
She has plans to discuss ways to keep other Arab nations involved in the Israel-PA negotiating process, according to a statement by the US State Department.
Contrary to her usual modus operandi, Rice will meet together in a three-way parlay with Defense Minister Ehud Barak and PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, and then do the same with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni (Israel’s chief negotiator) and chief PA negotiator Ahmed Qureia.
Rice will also eschew the traditional visit to PA Chairman and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas’s headquarters in Ramallah this time around due to her greeting by an angry mob during her last visit. Sources said Rice will meet elsewhere with Abbas at an undisclosed location.
Following her meetings with Israeli and PA officials Rice will travel to Jordan to meet with King Abdullah II, where according to a statement by the US Department of State, she will also be discussing “the political situation in Lebanon, stability in Iraq and other regional developments.”
Arutz Sheva blogger Michael Freund, a former official in the government of Binyamin Netanyahu, criticizes the US for focusing on hammering out an unrealistic political deal between Israel and the PA instead of focusing on the upcoming Middle East arms race. "There is something obsessive about the manner in which the Bush Administration is devoting so much time and resources to trying to create a Palestinian state," Freund writes. "A direct result of this mindset is that other, far more important issues, such as Iran's drive toward nuclear weapons and the nuclearization of the Middle East, are not getting the attention that they deserve... This is a dangerous development, and warrants a major 're-think' in Washington's entire approach to the region."
Ezra HaLevi and Maayana Miskin contributed to this report
Israeli officials are planning additional “gestures” to ease restrictions on Palestinian Authority Arabs, according to Army Radio. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defense Minister Ehud Barak will discuss the plans with United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Sunday. The US Secretary of State arrived at Ben Gurion International Airport Saturday evening in another attempt to push the pace on talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Rice said Saturday that one of her goals in her current trip to the region was to convince Israel to ease travel for PA Arabs in Judea and Samaria.
Security officials said Israel will remove dozens of roadblocks in Judea and Samaria and will remove one or two checkpoints as well. PA Arabs will be granted free access to the Dead Sea, as the checkpoint between Jericho and the sea, in place since 2000, is removed. Senior PA businessmen will be granted reduced travel restrictions, and thousands more PA Arabs will be granted permits allowing them to work for Israeli employers.
PA police stations will also be established in mid-sized villages in Area B, under Israeli security control and PA administrative control.
Rice met with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert Saturday night over dinner to discuss the main issues on which she plans to focus this time around.
She has plans to discuss ways to keep other Arab nations involved in the Israel-PA negotiating process, according to a statement by the US State Department.
Contrary to her usual modus operandi, Rice will meet together in a three-way parlay with Defense Minister Ehud Barak and PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, and then do the same with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni (Israel’s chief negotiator) and chief PA negotiator Ahmed Qureia.
Rice will also eschew the traditional visit to PA Chairman and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas’s headquarters in Ramallah this time around due to her greeting by an angry mob during her last visit. Sources said Rice will meet elsewhere with Abbas at an undisclosed location.
Following her meetings with Israeli and PA officials Rice will travel to Jordan to meet with King Abdullah II, where according to a statement by the US Department of State, she will also be discussing “the political situation in Lebanon, stability in Iraq and other regional developments.”
Arutz Sheva blogger Michael Freund, a former official in the government of Binyamin Netanyahu, criticizes the US for focusing on hammering out an unrealistic political deal between Israel and the PA instead of focusing on the upcoming Middle East arms race. "There is something obsessive about the manner in which the Bush Administration is devoting so much time and resources to trying to create a Palestinian state," Freund writes. "A direct result of this mindset is that other, far more important issues, such as Iran's drive toward nuclear weapons and the nuclearization of the Middle East, are not getting the attention that they deserve... This is a dangerous development, and warrants a major 're-think' in Washington's entire approach to the region."
Ezra HaLevi and Maayana Miskin contributed to this report
Fatah PA Corruption Exposed
Maayana Miskin and Ezra HaLevi
Senior Fatah officials in the Palestinian Authority health system systematically stole valuable medications and replaced them with worthless placebo pills.
The placebos, which lab tests show had no medical value, were passed along to clinics and hospitals, where they were given to patients suffering from serious and often life-threatening diseases.The real medications were taken to massive warehouses in Ramallah and Shechem, and were sold for high prices on the black market. PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas said over the weekend that the allegations would be investigated.
The PA has been hit by other scandals in recent weeks. PA negotiator Ahmed Qurei (Abu Ala) was recently accused of embezzling millions of dollars in PA funds, as was former Arafat advisor Khaled Salam. A third senior official was recently caught attempting to smuggle cellular telephones.
PA Considers Investigating Top Arafat Aide
PA officials said Saturday that they are considering an investigation of Khaled Salam, also known as Mohammed Rashid, a former senior advisor to deceased PA Chairman Yasser Arafat. PA General Prosecutor Ahmed al-Mughni said Salam is planning a $600 million investment in a Jordanian project, and that the money may have come from funds meant for the PA.
Rashid was involved in several financial partnerships with Israelis on ventures such as the Jericho casino..
Senior Fatah officials in the Palestinian Authority health system systematically stole valuable medications and replaced them with worthless placebo pills.
The placebos, which lab tests show had no medical value, were passed along to clinics and hospitals, where they were given to patients suffering from serious and often life-threatening diseases.The real medications were taken to massive warehouses in Ramallah and Shechem, and were sold for high prices on the black market. PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas said over the weekend that the allegations would be investigated.
The PA has been hit by other scandals in recent weeks. PA negotiator Ahmed Qurei (Abu Ala) was recently accused of embezzling millions of dollars in PA funds, as was former Arafat advisor Khaled Salam. A third senior official was recently caught attempting to smuggle cellular telephones.
PA Considers Investigating Top Arafat Aide
PA officials said Saturday that they are considering an investigation of Khaled Salam, also known as Mohammed Rashid, a former senior advisor to deceased PA Chairman Yasser Arafat. PA General Prosecutor Ahmed al-Mughni said Salam is planning a $600 million investment in a Jordanian project, and that the money may have come from funds meant for the PA.
Rashid was involved in several financial partnerships with Israelis on ventures such as the Jericho casino..
A liberal Israel lobby
Gershom Gorenberg
Prospect magazine
Issue 145 , April 2008
The power of the "Israel lobby" in the US is hard to measure exactly. But its hawkish positions do conflict with the views, and interests, of most American Jews. So why isn't there a more dovish lobby to counter it? One is, finally, about to be unveiled
Gershom Gorenberg is author of The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967-1977 (Times Books)
Discuss this article on First Drafts , Prospect's blog
In late January, the Israeli novelist AB Yehoshua wrote an article in the country's largest-circulation newspaper, Yediot Aharonot, urging the US to temporarily recall its ambassador from Israel. That act of diplomatic pique, he said, would be proof of America's friendship to his country.
The purpose, Yehoshua wrote, would be to pressure Prime Minister Olmert to evacuate the tiny West Bank settlements known as outposts, which violate Israeli and international law. Olmert and his predecessor Ariel Sharon had been promising President Bush to dismantle outposts for over three years. Olmert has publicly said that the country shames itself by not acting, but he fears the violent protests of the outpost settlers. Since most Israelis value good relations with the US, an American show of displeasure would help produce the public backing Olmert needs. "If the US is a true friend of Israel," Yehoshua said, "it must help her through a symbolic act of protest." Yehoshua is an immense figure in Israeli culture. His novels are canonical. He is outspokenly dovish but firmly within the mainstream left. He is also an old-fashioned Zionist who offends diaspora Jews by saying that one can only live a full Jewish life in Israel. So the man calling for America to lean on Israel is no radical. (In fact, in Israel Yehoshua's article promptly vanished from public notice, presumably deemed unremarkable.)
By asking for a deus ex machina to intervene in Israeli politics, Yehoshua was demonstrating the despair of Israel's peace camp. The left's once-forbidden positions—a two-state solution, evacuating settlements—are now boringly respectable. Olmert, a recovering rightist, supports them. But nothing happens. Why can't a winged figure descend to get the plot moving? America has filled that role for Israel before, vetoing UN security council condemnations, providing aid. Someone simply needs to tell the gods what Israel actually needs.
I write this not to mock Yehoshua but to agree with him. As a progressive Israeli, I long to see a shift in US policy. With Yehoshua, I believe that the right actions by the US could awaken public support here in Israel for the steps needed to reach peace.
I also believe there's no chance that President Bush will take Yehoshua's advice. If a member of the US congress made a similar proposal, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) would almost certainly encourage donations to his opponent in November's election. Does this mean that "the Israel lobby" controls the levers of US middle east policy, as John J Mearsheimer and Stephen M Walt argued in their famous book of that name last year? Not exactly. (Mearsheimer and Walt are both distinguished international affairs academics from, respectively, Chicago and Harvard universities. Their book, which caused a storm of criticism and accusations of anti-semitism, argued that US foreign policy is distorted by unconditional support for Israel, secured by a powerful "Israel lobby.") But they overstated their case in several ways. They credited a poorly defined "lobby" with exaggerated power, while failing to do the investigative research which could have painted a more accurate picture of the extent and limits of that power.
So what exactly can we say about Aipac? Along with a small number of other groups, Aipac is widely seen as speaking for Israel and American Jews from within US politics. But Aipac is certainly more hawkish on middle east politics than most American Jews. Though the precise degree of its influence is hard to measure, it is by all accounts—particularly its own—an effective lobbier of congress. And it is famously pugnacious when challenged. Yet its relentless focus on Israel's short-term security needs is ultimately damaging to Israel's long-term need for a viable peace deal. Why, then, is there no counter-Aipac, no dovish Israel lobby?
Before trying to answer that question, it is worth trying to establish more clearly how the existing lobby works. Since the real work of lobbying is done behind the scenes, its impact measured in nuances of legislation, a serious researcher would dig through archives and office files and interview lobbyists and congressional staffers to track the process. The researcher would also try to find out what, besides lobbying, shaped US middle east policy. On both counts, Mearsheimer and Walt failed to do the work.
Judging from published reports and Washington sources—almost all of whom insist on speaking anonymously on this subject—a proper study would conclude that Aipac has convinced members of congress that they can boost their campaign donations if they favour aid and arms for Israel. It would, further, almost certainly point out that politicians are afraid to add conditions to that aid—such as reducing aid by the amount that Israel spends on settlements in the occupied territories. The research would also report that Aipac sometimes loses—as when it failed to keep Ronald Reagan from selling AWACS surveillance planes to Saudi Arabia in 1981.
Lobbyists can only bend foreign relations so far. America's basic interests constrain its policy towards the middle east, yet those interests are neither self-evident nor consistent with one another. The problem was stated over 40 years ago by McGeorge Bundy, who was President Johnson's national security adviser until 1966. When the six-day war broke out in June 1967, Bundy was called back to the White House. A month later, he wrote a nine-page "framework of policy" for US relations with the middle east.
The Bundy doctrine's bottom line is that US interests contradict each other: the US is committed to Israel's survival, but also to good relations with pro-western Arab states that would like America to tilt against Israel. The war showed that US influence is limited; Washington could not even "dissuade some of our best friends among the Arabs from joining in the gang-up" against Israel. Even when Washington disagrees with Israeli policy, Bundy says, it should provide enough arms for Israel to defend itself. For if Israel faced defeat, the US "would confront the… painful and unattractive choices" of whether to send its own troops into battle.
Forty years on, much of Bundy's description remains valid. It is easier, even cheaper, for America to keep Israel strong than to defend it directly. But Washington must also accommodate Arab allies. The Bundy doctrine implies that getting Arabs and Israelis to agree a peace deal would resolve the contradictions in US policy—and would be the best guarantee of Israeli security. The question then becomes one of how much the US should lean towards providing for Israel's immediate security needs, and how much it should be pushing Israel towards a peace agreement as a strategic solution.
Aipac, according to sources familiar with Capitol Hill lobbying, tries to keep US policy almost entirely on the side of security needs, of protecting an embattled Israel. That's the implication behind Aipac's credo as spelt out on its website, where it describes itself as working "to help make Israel more secure by ensuring that American support remains strong." Aipac does not come out explicitly against peace efforts. But the list of initiatives it boasts of promoting includes nothing aimed at a two-state solution, and much aimed at restricting US relations with the Palestinians and other Arab and Muslim actors. Examples include increases in aid to Israel and a House of Representatives resolution "praising the Jewish state for reunifying Jerusalem" in 1967—alongside efforts to put conditions on aid to the Palestinian authority and enable sanctions against Syria.
As MJ Rosenberg of the dovish Israel Policy Forum comments, "They create an atmosphere on Capitol Hill that is sceptical of Palestinians in any shape or form." Another knowledgeable source explained to me that Aipac promotes an American stance that the Palestinian side is the one "responsible for what is going wrong, and it has to prove itself first. And if that's always going to be the definition of the peace process, they've killed it from the start."
Aipac has reportedly created hurdles even when the Israeli government itself has tried to make peace. In 1995, for example, Aipac backed a bill in congress to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The legislation looked pro-Israel. But as Michael Massing argued in the New York Review of Books and elsewhere, it was actually an ambush for Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who was negotiating with the Palestinians. Moving the embassy would have thrown a spanner into the Oslo peace talks. (The bill passed, but with a loophole enabling Presidents Clinton and Bush to avoid the move to Jerusalem.)
Another of the things that a responsible researcher could say with confidence is that within US politics, Aipac does not represent the views of American Jews. In 2004, only 24 per cent of Jews voted for Bush, according to exit polls. Yet when Bush spoke at Aipac's convention earlier that year, delegates reportedly interrupted him 67 times with ovations and chants of "Four more years!"
The liberal Jewish tilt even applies to middle east issues. The American Jewish Committee's most recent year-end survey of Jewish opinion showed a 46-43 plurality of US Jews in favour of establishing a Palestinian state. Support for the war in Iraq is consistently lower among Jews than among Americans in general. The AJC survey showed 57-35 per cent opposition among US Jews to American military action to stop Iran's nuclear programme.
As for Aipac, one of its current legislative concerns is promoting a hawkish position towards Iran. The organisation's website celebrates its role in the passage last year of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, a Senate resolution on Iran. Among other provisions, the amendment labels the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organisation. Democratic critics of the resolution say that it could open the door to the Bush administration going to war against Iran. Nonetheless, 76 out of 100 senators voted for it—meaning it got a majority even among Democrats. That vote came too late for Mearsheimer and Walt to describe, but it raises a big question: how significant is Aipac's role in influencing Democratic lawmakers to take stances apparently to the right both of their constituency and of US Jewish opinion? This is not a rhetorical question; other pressures must be accounted for too, including Democrats' abiding fears of appearing insufficiently muscular.
In any case, Mearsheimer and Walt did not write the sober and balanced book that we need on this emotional subject. Among other things, they described the neoconservative movement as being a subset of the Israel lobby rather than a wider political stream for whom Israel is just one concern—and whose positions on the middle east sometimes differ sharply from that of the Israeli government. The neocons, for example, thought they could democratise Arab countries; Israeli officials and experts generally fear that democracy will empower Islamic extremists or destabilise their neighbours, and they were ambivalent about the invasion of Iraq.
Yet perhaps the most striking flaw is that Mearsheimer and Walt accept Aipac's own claims regarding its power and who it represents. "In 24 hours, we could have the signatures of 70 senators on this napkin," they quote an Aipac official telling a journalist, and they insist it is not bluster. Though they sometimes note that "the lobby" is not the same as the American Jewish community, they also cite guesstimates that Jews provide between 20 and 60 per cent of donations to the Democratic party and its presidential candidates, and explain this as basic to "the lobby's" influence.
In a strange way, the book thereby becomes an advertisement for Aipac: the organisation's attraction for supporters is the power of its influence over congress and US policy. Its allure to candidates is its influence over Jewish donations and, to a lesser extent, votes. There's a truth here, as we have seen, but there is also a mythic shadow and politicians are sometimes frightened of the shadow. The potential for a counter-Aipac dovish lobby lies, in part, in dispelling fear of the shadow.
The concern of US politicians to stay in Aipac's good books becomes especially clear during election campaigns. Its status as a lobby means it is not allowed to directly raise money for candidates, or to endorse them. Instead, explains Rosenberg, it works closely with "50 to 60" political action committees—the bodies that actually raise and dispense donations.
One way for a politician to gain Aipac's approval is to publish a position paper on Israel, such as one that Hillary Clinton posted on her website last year. She begins by praising Israel as "a beacon of what democracy can and should be." She asserts that "Israel's right to… an undivided Jerusalem as its capital… must never be questioned." (Israel's vice-premier, Haim Ramon, is among those who supports negotiating a political division of Jerusalem.) She defends "Israel's right to build a security barrier" without mentioning that it runs through occupied territory, meaning Israeli settlements in the West Bank are de facto annexed to Israel. Indeed, the paper contains no mention of settlement, occupation, or helpful changes in Israeli policy. In Israel, it would place her firmly on the political right.
Clinton's rival for the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama, has his own policy statement on Israel, opening with a snippet of a speech he gave to an Aipac forum. Strikingly, though, his paper includes a promise to "work towards two states living side by side in peace and security." Obama has also been more forthright in calling for a shift in strategy towards Iran, including direct talks.
An adviser to Obama's campaign stresses that Aipac has said nothing against the senator. But Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice-president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organisations, did tell the Israeli daily Haaretz that "there is a legitimate concern over the zeitgeist around the [Obama] campaign," a comment intended to provoke anxiety. Obama has clearly made an effort to show that he can be as pro-Israel as Clinton—for instance, by sending a letter to US representative at the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad, in January insisting that any security council resolution on the Gaza crisis "clearly and unequivocally condemn the rocket attacks against Israel." The letter said nothing of the Israeli blockade of the Gaza strip. (Speaking to me, the Obama adviser noted that exit polls in the primaries showed his candidate doing as well as Clinton among Jewish voters, perhaps better. But does this mean Obama has convinced Jewish voters that he is toeing the standard line, or are some actually attracted by his hints at a more dovish policy?)
An Aipac blessing undoubtedly matters to some Jewish donors and voters—those for whom Israel is the overwhelming political concern. But they are a small minority. In the American Jewish Committee's latest survey, only 6 per cent of respondents said that Israel would be the most important issue in choosing who to support for president this year.
The people for whom Israel is the cardinal issue tend to hold strongly right-wing views on Israel and the middle east, and to regard Israel as standing perpetually on the brink of annihilation. And it appears that they dominate discussion of Israel within Jewish organisations, including Aipac itself. Most other Jewish campaign donors support a wide liberal agenda—on Iraq, the economy, abortion, the environment and more. But in meetings with candidates, they are unlikely to mention their views on Israel.
So the first task of a counter-Aipac would be to be to get dovish Jewish donors—who support an end to the occupation, a two-state solution and a more active US role in getting there—to express their views more loudly, so that the politicians cease equating Aipac with Jewish support. A second would be to line up donors willing to make money conditional on more moderate positions on Israel—willing to meet candidates in well-appointed living rooms with chequebooks and say, "What will you do to save Israel from the occupation?" Hillary Clinton needs to know that she could gain, rather than lose, if her positions did not sound as if they were written by Benjamin Netanyahu.
For over a year, there have been reports that a "liberal Israel lobby" is on the verge of forming. Plans are now apparently well under way for the launch, sources close to the project have told me.
The new group will face many challenges, partly because, as we have seen, liberal Jews in America are more likely to care about general US political issues than about ethnocentric ones. But for a new lobby, I would suggest, the first principle should be that Israel's strategic goal is peace based on a two-state solution with the Palestinians, and that America serves its own needs by helping Israel get there. The mainstream Zionist vision was, and is, of a democratic state with a Jewish majority, with full rights for all citizens, a country living at peace with its neighbours. (That's what Israel's declaration of independence says.) The state should be Jewish simply by dint of that majority, not through discrimination.
There is an unbearable contradiction between this vision and the continued rule of the occupied territories. To leave the Palestinians of the West Bank disenfranchised, under military rule, their daily movements restricted for the sake of Israeli settlers' safety, undermines democracy. On the other hand, annexing the West Bank and Gaza and granting citizenship to the Palestinians means creating a binational state. The conflict between the two national groups within such a single state is likely to look more like Bosnia in the 1990s than Belgium today.
For Israel, therefore, reaching a two-state solution is a strategic necessity. The only way to achieve that is a peace agreement. Israel can safely withdraw from the West Bank only under an agreement in which Palestinians also accept the principle of two states, of partitioning the contested homeland. The Palestinian government must be strong enough to control its territory and prevent splinter groups from continuing armed struggle for all of Palestine. The only workable baseline for a peace agreement is a full Israeli pullout from the West Bank, with some minor exchanges of territory—so giving up most of the settlements is also a necessity for Israel's future.
Avoiding a single-state outcome is also an American goal. Israel is the one country in the middle east that can be depended on to stay pro-US. This would not be true of a single state which in time would have a Palestinian majority and built-in communal conflict.
So the first priority of a real pro-Israel lobby should be pushing for the most active possible US role in brokering a two-state solution. As Israeli strategic analyst Yossi Alpher has pointed out, the US has succeeded in advancing Arab-Israeli peace only when an emissary representing "the full prestige of the American president" has come to the region for extended negotiations, as Henry Kissinger, secretary of state, did after the 1973 war.
The negotiator has to propose compromises and then push hard for them. The US must also provide incentives. It should offer funds to resettle Palestinian refugees in the Palestinian state and to relocate Israeli settlers within Israel. But the offers should have tough conditions: for the Palestinians, giving up on resettling refugees within Israel; for Israel, evacuating settlements that it has heretofore insisted it has to keep. The liberal Israel lobby should work on Capitol Hill to support such funding for peace.
Diplomacy also means effective pressure on both sides and on the relevant Arab states. The US should insist that the Palestinian authority in the West Bank disarm all armed factions that remain in its territory. But the US will need to lean on Israel too. Right now, the Israeli public has no idea how much the state spends on settlement. American insistence on financial transparency as a condition for current aid levels would serve Israeli democracy and increase domestic backing for a settlement freeze. AB Yehoshua is right that the US should finally show real displeasure that outposts have not been taken down. That's an example of how Washington can help an Israeli government do what it knows it should, helping to beat domestic pressures.
Realistically, even a liberal Israel lobby will be more timid than progressive Israelis. Few US Jews will feel comfortable asking for American pressure on Israel. Publicly, the lobby's task will be to increase support for diplomacy and a two-state solution. But it will also allow more politicians—particularly liberal ones—to say what they really think about Israel/Palestine, safe in the knowledge that there is an alternative lobby to back them with money and votes. Quietly, it should counterbalance lobbying by Aipac for congress to tie the president's hands in negotiations. If a peace process really does get moving, expect an Aipac-backed congressional resolution on the need to keep Jerusalem united as the capital of Israel—an American position that would undermine the talks. The liberal lobby's task would be to push the pragmatic stance that the future of the Holy City must be agreed by both sides.
But a real pro-Israel policy extends beyond the Palestinian issue. Renewed peace talks between Israel and Syria are in both Israeli and American interests. If the talks succeed, they would lead to a cold peace—which is much better than the current cold war, in which Damascus uses Hamas and Hizbullah as proxies to bleed Israel. Alon Liel—the ex-director general of Israel's foreign ministry, who last year revealed that he had conducted unofficial back-channel talks with Syria—says that part of any peace deal would be Syria realigning itself with the west. That would weaken Iran's position in the region, and be a clear American victory. A liberal lobby would promote US backing for such negotiations.
Even on Iran, a liberal lobby could encourage a shift. An Iranian bomb is certainly a serious danger to Israel. But US refusal to negotiate with Tehran means giving up in advance on means to reduce the threat. There are hard-nosed strategic analysts in Israel who advocate a quid pro quo: US acceptance of the Iranian regime in return for an end to uranium enrichment and support for terror groups.
Ultimately, Israel's goal is to be part of the middle east, not to be a garrison state in conflict with it. To support the most bellicose possible Israeli or US policies is to damage both countries. A liberal voice is needed in Washington to press that message. Perhaps this is another form of hope for a deus ex machina. If so, the winged figure is long overdue.
Guest Comment:This is something that needs to be exposed and worked against. We don't need Jews who work to weaken Israel by influencing the US to force Israel into concessions. Lou
Prospect magazine
Issue 145 , April 2008
The power of the "Israel lobby" in the US is hard to measure exactly. But its hawkish positions do conflict with the views, and interests, of most American Jews. So why isn't there a more dovish lobby to counter it? One is, finally, about to be unveiled
Gershom Gorenberg is author of The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967-1977 (Times Books)
Discuss this article on First Drafts , Prospect's blog
In late January, the Israeli novelist AB Yehoshua wrote an article in the country's largest-circulation newspaper, Yediot Aharonot, urging the US to temporarily recall its ambassador from Israel. That act of diplomatic pique, he said, would be proof of America's friendship to his country.
The purpose, Yehoshua wrote, would be to pressure Prime Minister Olmert to evacuate the tiny West Bank settlements known as outposts, which violate Israeli and international law. Olmert and his predecessor Ariel Sharon had been promising President Bush to dismantle outposts for over three years. Olmert has publicly said that the country shames itself by not acting, but he fears the violent protests of the outpost settlers. Since most Israelis value good relations with the US, an American show of displeasure would help produce the public backing Olmert needs. "If the US is a true friend of Israel," Yehoshua said, "it must help her through a symbolic act of protest." Yehoshua is an immense figure in Israeli culture. His novels are canonical. He is outspokenly dovish but firmly within the mainstream left. He is also an old-fashioned Zionist who offends diaspora Jews by saying that one can only live a full Jewish life in Israel. So the man calling for America to lean on Israel is no radical. (In fact, in Israel Yehoshua's article promptly vanished from public notice, presumably deemed unremarkable.)
By asking for a deus ex machina to intervene in Israeli politics, Yehoshua was demonstrating the despair of Israel's peace camp. The left's once-forbidden positions—a two-state solution, evacuating settlements—are now boringly respectable. Olmert, a recovering rightist, supports them. But nothing happens. Why can't a winged figure descend to get the plot moving? America has filled that role for Israel before, vetoing UN security council condemnations, providing aid. Someone simply needs to tell the gods what Israel actually needs.
I write this not to mock Yehoshua but to agree with him. As a progressive Israeli, I long to see a shift in US policy. With Yehoshua, I believe that the right actions by the US could awaken public support here in Israel for the steps needed to reach peace.
I also believe there's no chance that President Bush will take Yehoshua's advice. If a member of the US congress made a similar proposal, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) would almost certainly encourage donations to his opponent in November's election. Does this mean that "the Israel lobby" controls the levers of US middle east policy, as John J Mearsheimer and Stephen M Walt argued in their famous book of that name last year? Not exactly. (Mearsheimer and Walt are both distinguished international affairs academics from, respectively, Chicago and Harvard universities. Their book, which caused a storm of criticism and accusations of anti-semitism, argued that US foreign policy is distorted by unconditional support for Israel, secured by a powerful "Israel lobby.") But they overstated their case in several ways. They credited a poorly defined "lobby" with exaggerated power, while failing to do the investigative research which could have painted a more accurate picture of the extent and limits of that power.
So what exactly can we say about Aipac? Along with a small number of other groups, Aipac is widely seen as speaking for Israel and American Jews from within US politics. But Aipac is certainly more hawkish on middle east politics than most American Jews. Though the precise degree of its influence is hard to measure, it is by all accounts—particularly its own—an effective lobbier of congress. And it is famously pugnacious when challenged. Yet its relentless focus on Israel's short-term security needs is ultimately damaging to Israel's long-term need for a viable peace deal. Why, then, is there no counter-Aipac, no dovish Israel lobby?
Before trying to answer that question, it is worth trying to establish more clearly how the existing lobby works. Since the real work of lobbying is done behind the scenes, its impact measured in nuances of legislation, a serious researcher would dig through archives and office files and interview lobbyists and congressional staffers to track the process. The researcher would also try to find out what, besides lobbying, shaped US middle east policy. On both counts, Mearsheimer and Walt failed to do the work.
Judging from published reports and Washington sources—almost all of whom insist on speaking anonymously on this subject—a proper study would conclude that Aipac has convinced members of congress that they can boost their campaign donations if they favour aid and arms for Israel. It would, further, almost certainly point out that politicians are afraid to add conditions to that aid—such as reducing aid by the amount that Israel spends on settlements in the occupied territories. The research would also report that Aipac sometimes loses—as when it failed to keep Ronald Reagan from selling AWACS surveillance planes to Saudi Arabia in 1981.
Lobbyists can only bend foreign relations so far. America's basic interests constrain its policy towards the middle east, yet those interests are neither self-evident nor consistent with one another. The problem was stated over 40 years ago by McGeorge Bundy, who was President Johnson's national security adviser until 1966. When the six-day war broke out in June 1967, Bundy was called back to the White House. A month later, he wrote a nine-page "framework of policy" for US relations with the middle east.
The Bundy doctrine's bottom line is that US interests contradict each other: the US is committed to Israel's survival, but also to good relations with pro-western Arab states that would like America to tilt against Israel. The war showed that US influence is limited; Washington could not even "dissuade some of our best friends among the Arabs from joining in the gang-up" against Israel. Even when Washington disagrees with Israeli policy, Bundy says, it should provide enough arms for Israel to defend itself. For if Israel faced defeat, the US "would confront the… painful and unattractive choices" of whether to send its own troops into battle.
Forty years on, much of Bundy's description remains valid. It is easier, even cheaper, for America to keep Israel strong than to defend it directly. But Washington must also accommodate Arab allies. The Bundy doctrine implies that getting Arabs and Israelis to agree a peace deal would resolve the contradictions in US policy—and would be the best guarantee of Israeli security. The question then becomes one of how much the US should lean towards providing for Israel's immediate security needs, and how much it should be pushing Israel towards a peace agreement as a strategic solution.
Aipac, according to sources familiar with Capitol Hill lobbying, tries to keep US policy almost entirely on the side of security needs, of protecting an embattled Israel. That's the implication behind Aipac's credo as spelt out on its website, where it describes itself as working "to help make Israel more secure by ensuring that American support remains strong." Aipac does not come out explicitly against peace efforts. But the list of initiatives it boasts of promoting includes nothing aimed at a two-state solution, and much aimed at restricting US relations with the Palestinians and other Arab and Muslim actors. Examples include increases in aid to Israel and a House of Representatives resolution "praising the Jewish state for reunifying Jerusalem" in 1967—alongside efforts to put conditions on aid to the Palestinian authority and enable sanctions against Syria.
As MJ Rosenberg of the dovish Israel Policy Forum comments, "They create an atmosphere on Capitol Hill that is sceptical of Palestinians in any shape or form." Another knowledgeable source explained to me that Aipac promotes an American stance that the Palestinian side is the one "responsible for what is going wrong, and it has to prove itself first. And if that's always going to be the definition of the peace process, they've killed it from the start."
Aipac has reportedly created hurdles even when the Israeli government itself has tried to make peace. In 1995, for example, Aipac backed a bill in congress to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The legislation looked pro-Israel. But as Michael Massing argued in the New York Review of Books and elsewhere, it was actually an ambush for Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who was negotiating with the Palestinians. Moving the embassy would have thrown a spanner into the Oslo peace talks. (The bill passed, but with a loophole enabling Presidents Clinton and Bush to avoid the move to Jerusalem.)
Another of the things that a responsible researcher could say with confidence is that within US politics, Aipac does not represent the views of American Jews. In 2004, only 24 per cent of Jews voted for Bush, according to exit polls. Yet when Bush spoke at Aipac's convention earlier that year, delegates reportedly interrupted him 67 times with ovations and chants of "Four more years!"
The liberal Jewish tilt even applies to middle east issues. The American Jewish Committee's most recent year-end survey of Jewish opinion showed a 46-43 plurality of US Jews in favour of establishing a Palestinian state. Support for the war in Iraq is consistently lower among Jews than among Americans in general. The AJC survey showed 57-35 per cent opposition among US Jews to American military action to stop Iran's nuclear programme.
As for Aipac, one of its current legislative concerns is promoting a hawkish position towards Iran. The organisation's website celebrates its role in the passage last year of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, a Senate resolution on Iran. Among other provisions, the amendment labels the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organisation. Democratic critics of the resolution say that it could open the door to the Bush administration going to war against Iran. Nonetheless, 76 out of 100 senators voted for it—meaning it got a majority even among Democrats. That vote came too late for Mearsheimer and Walt to describe, but it raises a big question: how significant is Aipac's role in influencing Democratic lawmakers to take stances apparently to the right both of their constituency and of US Jewish opinion? This is not a rhetorical question; other pressures must be accounted for too, including Democrats' abiding fears of appearing insufficiently muscular.
In any case, Mearsheimer and Walt did not write the sober and balanced book that we need on this emotional subject. Among other things, they described the neoconservative movement as being a subset of the Israel lobby rather than a wider political stream for whom Israel is just one concern—and whose positions on the middle east sometimes differ sharply from that of the Israeli government. The neocons, for example, thought they could democratise Arab countries; Israeli officials and experts generally fear that democracy will empower Islamic extremists or destabilise their neighbours, and they were ambivalent about the invasion of Iraq.
Yet perhaps the most striking flaw is that Mearsheimer and Walt accept Aipac's own claims regarding its power and who it represents. "In 24 hours, we could have the signatures of 70 senators on this napkin," they quote an Aipac official telling a journalist, and they insist it is not bluster. Though they sometimes note that "the lobby" is not the same as the American Jewish community, they also cite guesstimates that Jews provide between 20 and 60 per cent of donations to the Democratic party and its presidential candidates, and explain this as basic to "the lobby's" influence.
In a strange way, the book thereby becomes an advertisement for Aipac: the organisation's attraction for supporters is the power of its influence over congress and US policy. Its allure to candidates is its influence over Jewish donations and, to a lesser extent, votes. There's a truth here, as we have seen, but there is also a mythic shadow and politicians are sometimes frightened of the shadow. The potential for a counter-Aipac dovish lobby lies, in part, in dispelling fear of the shadow.
The concern of US politicians to stay in Aipac's good books becomes especially clear during election campaigns. Its status as a lobby means it is not allowed to directly raise money for candidates, or to endorse them. Instead, explains Rosenberg, it works closely with "50 to 60" political action committees—the bodies that actually raise and dispense donations.
One way for a politician to gain Aipac's approval is to publish a position paper on Israel, such as one that Hillary Clinton posted on her website last year. She begins by praising Israel as "a beacon of what democracy can and should be." She asserts that "Israel's right to… an undivided Jerusalem as its capital… must never be questioned." (Israel's vice-premier, Haim Ramon, is among those who supports negotiating a political division of Jerusalem.) She defends "Israel's right to build a security barrier" without mentioning that it runs through occupied territory, meaning Israeli settlements in the West Bank are de facto annexed to Israel. Indeed, the paper contains no mention of settlement, occupation, or helpful changes in Israeli policy. In Israel, it would place her firmly on the political right.
Clinton's rival for the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama, has his own policy statement on Israel, opening with a snippet of a speech he gave to an Aipac forum. Strikingly, though, his paper includes a promise to "work towards two states living side by side in peace and security." Obama has also been more forthright in calling for a shift in strategy towards Iran, including direct talks.
An adviser to Obama's campaign stresses that Aipac has said nothing against the senator. But Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice-president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organisations, did tell the Israeli daily Haaretz that "there is a legitimate concern over the zeitgeist around the [Obama] campaign," a comment intended to provoke anxiety. Obama has clearly made an effort to show that he can be as pro-Israel as Clinton—for instance, by sending a letter to US representative at the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad, in January insisting that any security council resolution on the Gaza crisis "clearly and unequivocally condemn the rocket attacks against Israel." The letter said nothing of the Israeli blockade of the Gaza strip. (Speaking to me, the Obama adviser noted that exit polls in the primaries showed his candidate doing as well as Clinton among Jewish voters, perhaps better. But does this mean Obama has convinced Jewish voters that he is toeing the standard line, or are some actually attracted by his hints at a more dovish policy?)
An Aipac blessing undoubtedly matters to some Jewish donors and voters—those for whom Israel is the overwhelming political concern. But they are a small minority. In the American Jewish Committee's latest survey, only 6 per cent of respondents said that Israel would be the most important issue in choosing who to support for president this year.
The people for whom Israel is the cardinal issue tend to hold strongly right-wing views on Israel and the middle east, and to regard Israel as standing perpetually on the brink of annihilation. And it appears that they dominate discussion of Israel within Jewish organisations, including Aipac itself. Most other Jewish campaign donors support a wide liberal agenda—on Iraq, the economy, abortion, the environment and more. But in meetings with candidates, they are unlikely to mention their views on Israel.
So the first task of a counter-Aipac would be to be to get dovish Jewish donors—who support an end to the occupation, a two-state solution and a more active US role in getting there—to express their views more loudly, so that the politicians cease equating Aipac with Jewish support. A second would be to line up donors willing to make money conditional on more moderate positions on Israel—willing to meet candidates in well-appointed living rooms with chequebooks and say, "What will you do to save Israel from the occupation?" Hillary Clinton needs to know that she could gain, rather than lose, if her positions did not sound as if they were written by Benjamin Netanyahu.
For over a year, there have been reports that a "liberal Israel lobby" is on the verge of forming. Plans are now apparently well under way for the launch, sources close to the project have told me.
The new group will face many challenges, partly because, as we have seen, liberal Jews in America are more likely to care about general US political issues than about ethnocentric ones. But for a new lobby, I would suggest, the first principle should be that Israel's strategic goal is peace based on a two-state solution with the Palestinians, and that America serves its own needs by helping Israel get there. The mainstream Zionist vision was, and is, of a democratic state with a Jewish majority, with full rights for all citizens, a country living at peace with its neighbours. (That's what Israel's declaration of independence says.) The state should be Jewish simply by dint of that majority, not through discrimination.
There is an unbearable contradiction between this vision and the continued rule of the occupied territories. To leave the Palestinians of the West Bank disenfranchised, under military rule, their daily movements restricted for the sake of Israeli settlers' safety, undermines democracy. On the other hand, annexing the West Bank and Gaza and granting citizenship to the Palestinians means creating a binational state. The conflict between the two national groups within such a single state is likely to look more like Bosnia in the 1990s than Belgium today.
For Israel, therefore, reaching a two-state solution is a strategic necessity. The only way to achieve that is a peace agreement. Israel can safely withdraw from the West Bank only under an agreement in which Palestinians also accept the principle of two states, of partitioning the contested homeland. The Palestinian government must be strong enough to control its territory and prevent splinter groups from continuing armed struggle for all of Palestine. The only workable baseline for a peace agreement is a full Israeli pullout from the West Bank, with some minor exchanges of territory—so giving up most of the settlements is also a necessity for Israel's future.
Avoiding a single-state outcome is also an American goal. Israel is the one country in the middle east that can be depended on to stay pro-US. This would not be true of a single state which in time would have a Palestinian majority and built-in communal conflict.
So the first priority of a real pro-Israel lobby should be pushing for the most active possible US role in brokering a two-state solution. As Israeli strategic analyst Yossi Alpher has pointed out, the US has succeeded in advancing Arab-Israeli peace only when an emissary representing "the full prestige of the American president" has come to the region for extended negotiations, as Henry Kissinger, secretary of state, did after the 1973 war.
The negotiator has to propose compromises and then push hard for them. The US must also provide incentives. It should offer funds to resettle Palestinian refugees in the Palestinian state and to relocate Israeli settlers within Israel. But the offers should have tough conditions: for the Palestinians, giving up on resettling refugees within Israel; for Israel, evacuating settlements that it has heretofore insisted it has to keep. The liberal Israel lobby should work on Capitol Hill to support such funding for peace.
Diplomacy also means effective pressure on both sides and on the relevant Arab states. The US should insist that the Palestinian authority in the West Bank disarm all armed factions that remain in its territory. But the US will need to lean on Israel too. Right now, the Israeli public has no idea how much the state spends on settlement. American insistence on financial transparency as a condition for current aid levels would serve Israeli democracy and increase domestic backing for a settlement freeze. AB Yehoshua is right that the US should finally show real displeasure that outposts have not been taken down. That's an example of how Washington can help an Israeli government do what it knows it should, helping to beat domestic pressures.
Realistically, even a liberal Israel lobby will be more timid than progressive Israelis. Few US Jews will feel comfortable asking for American pressure on Israel. Publicly, the lobby's task will be to increase support for diplomacy and a two-state solution. But it will also allow more politicians—particularly liberal ones—to say what they really think about Israel/Palestine, safe in the knowledge that there is an alternative lobby to back them with money and votes. Quietly, it should counterbalance lobbying by Aipac for congress to tie the president's hands in negotiations. If a peace process really does get moving, expect an Aipac-backed congressional resolution on the need to keep Jerusalem united as the capital of Israel—an American position that would undermine the talks. The liberal lobby's task would be to push the pragmatic stance that the future of the Holy City must be agreed by both sides.
But a real pro-Israel policy extends beyond the Palestinian issue. Renewed peace talks between Israel and Syria are in both Israeli and American interests. If the talks succeed, they would lead to a cold peace—which is much better than the current cold war, in which Damascus uses Hamas and Hizbullah as proxies to bleed Israel. Alon Liel—the ex-director general of Israel's foreign ministry, who last year revealed that he had conducted unofficial back-channel talks with Syria—says that part of any peace deal would be Syria realigning itself with the west. That would weaken Iran's position in the region, and be a clear American victory. A liberal lobby would promote US backing for such negotiations.
Even on Iran, a liberal lobby could encourage a shift. An Iranian bomb is certainly a serious danger to Israel. But US refusal to negotiate with Tehran means giving up in advance on means to reduce the threat. There are hard-nosed strategic analysts in Israel who advocate a quid pro quo: US acceptance of the Iranian regime in return for an end to uranium enrichment and support for terror groups.
Ultimately, Israel's goal is to be part of the middle east, not to be a garrison state in conflict with it. To support the most bellicose possible Israeli or US policies is to damage both countries. A liberal voice is needed in Washington to press that message. Perhaps this is another form of hope for a deus ex machina. If so, the winged figure is long overdue.
Guest Comment:This is something that needs to be exposed and worked against. We don't need Jews who work to weaken Israel by influencing the US to force Israel into concessions. Lou
"FITNA"
From the Editor of SUA
I wish it weren't so.......but it is. Watch this pre-release of what is happening in the Netherlands......See it now on Stand Up America...for all to see. This is what is being passed around the globe about Islam. There must be many decent Muslims who want desperately to escape the
tyranny of Islamic fundamentalism; they must revolt against Islamism if there is to be any chance for them and us in the west to avoid the ensuing conflagration.
It appears that the Netherlands is going to be the West's battleground and first line of defense against the enemy; first the Van Gogh murder; then the Ayaan Hirsi Ali escape; the Netherlands politicians brave stand and now the movie "Fitna".
The real movement to change Islam must come from within Islam. The "Fitna" film is accessible on the second frame down on Serveur 2.
http://www.ajm.ch/wordpress/?p=1028;
Thanks to Stand Up America
I wish it weren't so.......but it is. Watch this pre-release of what is happening in the Netherlands......See it now on Stand Up America...for all to see. This is what is being passed around the globe about Islam. There must be many decent Muslims who want desperately to escape the
tyranny of Islamic fundamentalism; they must revolt against Islamism if there is to be any chance for them and us in the west to avoid the ensuing conflagration.
It appears that the Netherlands is going to be the West's battleground and first line of defense against the enemy; first the Van Gogh murder; then the Ayaan Hirsi Ali escape; the Netherlands politicians brave stand and now the movie "Fitna".
The real movement to change Islam must come from within Islam. The "Fitna" film is accessible on the second frame down on Serveur 2.
Thanks to Stand Up America
U.K.: Muslim bus driver halts bus to pray
From our ever-expanding You Can't Make This Stuff Up file. "Get off my bus, please, I need to pray," from The Sun (thanks to Elric66):
A MUSLIM bus driver told stunned passengers to get off so he could PRAY.
The white Islamic convert rolled out his prayer mat in the aisle and knelt on the floor facing Mecca.. Passengers watched in amazement as he held out his palms towards the sky, bowed his head and began to chant.
One, who filmed the man on his mobile phone, said: “He was clearly praying and chanting in Arabic.
The video can be seen at the article link above.
“We thought it was a wind-up at first, like Jeremy Beadle.”
The 21-year-old plumber added: “He looked English and had a London accent. He looked like a Muslim convert, with a big, bushy beard.
“Eventually everyone started complaining. One woman said, ‘What the hell are you doing? I’m going to be late for work’.”
After a few minutes the driver calmly got up, opened the doors and asked everyone back on board.
But they saw a rucksack lying on the floor of the red single-decker and feared he might be a fanatic. So they all refused.
The passenger added: “One chap said, ‘I’m not getting on there now’.
“An elderly couple also looked really confused and worried.
“After seeing that no-one wanted to get on he drove off and we all waited until the next bus came about 20 minutes later. I was left totally stunned. It made me not want to get on a bus again.”
The bizarre event unfolded on the number 81 in Langley, Berkshire, at around 1.30pm on Thursday.
The passenger said he rang the bus firm to complain but claimed it did not believe him.
He said: “They asked me, ‘Are you sure?’. Then they said they would get back to me, but they weren’t taking me seriously at all.”
Yesterday the driver, who said his name was Hrun, told The Sun: “I asked everyone to get off because I needed to pray. I was running late and had not had time.
“I pray five times a day as a Muslim — but I don’t normally ask people to get off the bus to do it.”
Muslims pray at pre-dawn, noon, afternoon, sunset and evening.
A spokesperson for bus company London United said: “We are aware of a reported incident involving our route 81.
“We are currently undertaking a full investigation into the matter.”
Thanks Dhimmi Watch
A MUSLIM bus driver told stunned passengers to get off so he could PRAY.
The white Islamic convert rolled out his prayer mat in the aisle and knelt on the floor facing Mecca.. Passengers watched in amazement as he held out his palms towards the sky, bowed his head and began to chant.
One, who filmed the man on his mobile phone, said: “He was clearly praying and chanting in Arabic.
The video can be seen at the article link above.
“We thought it was a wind-up at first, like Jeremy Beadle.”
The 21-year-old plumber added: “He looked English and had a London accent. He looked like a Muslim convert, with a big, bushy beard.
“Eventually everyone started complaining. One woman said, ‘What the hell are you doing? I’m going to be late for work’.”
After a few minutes the driver calmly got up, opened the doors and asked everyone back on board.
But they saw a rucksack lying on the floor of the red single-decker and feared he might be a fanatic. So they all refused.
The passenger added: “One chap said, ‘I’m not getting on there now’.
“An elderly couple also looked really confused and worried.
“After seeing that no-one wanted to get on he drove off and we all waited until the next bus came about 20 minutes later. I was left totally stunned. It made me not want to get on a bus again.”
The bizarre event unfolded on the number 81 in Langley, Berkshire, at around 1.30pm on Thursday.
The passenger said he rang the bus firm to complain but claimed it did not believe him.
He said: “They asked me, ‘Are you sure?’. Then they said they would get back to me, but they weren’t taking me seriously at all.”
Yesterday the driver, who said his name was Hrun, told The Sun: “I asked everyone to get off because I needed to pray. I was running late and had not had time.
“I pray five times a day as a Muslim — but I don’t normally ask people to get off the bus to do it.”
Muslims pray at pre-dawn, noon, afternoon, sunset and evening.
A spokesperson for bus company London United said: “We are aware of a reported incident involving our route 81.
“We are currently undertaking a full investigation into the matter.”
Thanks Dhimmi Watch
So much for solidarity
Dutch businesses threaten to sue Wilders over Fitna
"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." - Benjamin Franklin
"Dutch businesses threaten to sue over anti-Islam film," from Agence France-Presse:
THE HAGUE (AFP) — Dutch businesses Saturday threatened to sue far-right lawmaker Geert Wilders if his anti-Islam film led to a commercial boycott, as several more Muslim countries condemned it.
"I don't know if Wilders is rich, or well-insured, but in the case of a boycott, we would look to see if we could make him bear responsibility," Bernard Wientjes, chairman of the Dutch employers' organisation VNO-NCW, told the newspaper Het Financieel Dagblad. "A boycott would hurt Dutch exports. Businesses such as Shell, Philips and Unilever are easily identifiable as Dutch companies," he was quoted as saying.
Malaysia's former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad suggested a boycott on Saturday, echoing a similar call by media in Jordan.
"If we boycott Dutch products, they will have to close down their businesses," Mohamad told reporters. "If the world's 1.3 billion Muslims unite and say they won't buy, then it (the boycott) will be effective."
Since the release of the 17-minute documentary "Fitna" on the Internet on Thursday, Muslim nations including Malaysia and Singapore have condemned the film, as has UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.
Although there were no mass disturbances in the Netherlands, in Utrecht two cars were set ablaze overnight, with a slogan calling for the death of Wilders.
"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." - Benjamin Franklin
"Dutch businesses threaten to sue over anti-Islam film," from Agence France-Presse:
THE HAGUE (AFP) — Dutch businesses Saturday threatened to sue far-right lawmaker Geert Wilders if his anti-Islam film led to a commercial boycott, as several more Muslim countries condemned it.
"I don't know if Wilders is rich, or well-insured, but in the case of a boycott, we would look to see if we could make him bear responsibility," Bernard Wientjes, chairman of the Dutch employers' organisation VNO-NCW, told the newspaper Het Financieel Dagblad. "A boycott would hurt Dutch exports. Businesses such as Shell, Philips and Unilever are easily identifiable as Dutch companies," he was quoted as saying.
Malaysia's former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad suggested a boycott on Saturday, echoing a similar call by media in Jordan.
"If we boycott Dutch products, they will have to close down their businesses," Mohamad told reporters. "If the world's 1.3 billion Muslims unite and say they won't buy, then it (the boycott) will be effective."
Since the release of the 17-minute documentary "Fitna" on the Internet on Thursday, Muslim nations including Malaysia and Singapore have condemned the film, as has UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.
Although there were no mass disturbances in the Netherlands, in Utrecht two cars were set ablaze overnight, with a slogan calling for the death of Wilders.
Fitna Rage rolls on; Pak jihadist threatens: "Foreigners will be attacked. The situation will change, change, change"
Now, now. Didn't the Christianists did the same thing when The DaVinci Code came out? No? Uh, never mind. "Anti-Quran film sparks protests in Muslim world," from CNN-IBN:
New Delhi: Muslims in several countries are protesting a film by a Dutch lawmaker's film, saying it insults the Quran. Hundreds of Islamists staged angry protests across Pakistan after the release of the film and a militant allegedly linked to al-Qaida's No 2 leader also warned that the film will spark reprisal attacks.
Small groups of demonstrators, mostly followers of hard-line religious groups, rallied in major cities, demanding Pakistan cut diplomatic relations with the Netherlands. A banner at one demonstration read, "We hate the uncivilized West."
You Occidentophobe.
The book has verses from the Quran against a background of violent images of terrorist attacks.
These include the 9/11 attacks in the US and the 2004 Madrid train bombings. The film starts and ends with the controversial Danish cartoons on Prophet Mohammad.
Religious activists in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia and several European countries took out protest rallies against the film and the Pakistan government said the film deeply offended the sentiments of Muslims all over the world.
The European Union too has made critical observations on the film. But it was defended by Salman Rushdie, who was himself under attack from Islamic fundamentalists after his book Satanic Verses.
AP adds: The 15-minute film by Geert Wilders, who heads a reactionary political party with seats in the Dutch parliament, was posted on a Web site yesterday. It sets verses of the Quran, Islam's holy book, against a background of images from terrorist attacks.
Pakistan's government condemned the " defamatory film, which deeply offended the sentiments of Muslims all over the world." It summoned the Dutch ambassador to lodge a " strong protest."
Protests have been simmering for weeks over the recent republication in Danish newspapers of cartoons of Prophet Muhammad, and authorities are concerned the Dutch film could spark the kind of violent unrest that the cartoons originally provoked two years ago.
A militant believed linked to al-Qaida's deputy chief Ayman al-Zawahri told The Associated Press in the northwestern city of Peshawar last week militants would mount revenge attacks against foreigners because of Wilders' film.
"Foreigners will be attacked. The situation will change, change, change," said Qari Mohammed Yusuf, whose also said his two brothers died fighting alongside al-Zawahri.
New Delhi: Muslims in several countries are protesting a film by a Dutch lawmaker's film, saying it insults the Quran. Hundreds of Islamists staged angry protests across Pakistan after the release of the film and a militant allegedly linked to al-Qaida's No 2 leader also warned that the film will spark reprisal attacks.
Small groups of demonstrators, mostly followers of hard-line religious groups, rallied in major cities, demanding Pakistan cut diplomatic relations with the Netherlands. A banner at one demonstration read, "We hate the uncivilized West."
You Occidentophobe.
The book has verses from the Quran against a background of violent images of terrorist attacks.
These include the 9/11 attacks in the US and the 2004 Madrid train bombings. The film starts and ends with the controversial Danish cartoons on Prophet Mohammad.
Religious activists in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia and several European countries took out protest rallies against the film and the Pakistan government said the film deeply offended the sentiments of Muslims all over the world.
The European Union too has made critical observations on the film. But it was defended by Salman Rushdie, who was himself under attack from Islamic fundamentalists after his book Satanic Verses.
AP adds: The 15-minute film by Geert Wilders, who heads a reactionary political party with seats in the Dutch parliament, was posted on a Web site yesterday. It sets verses of the Quran, Islam's holy book, against a background of images from terrorist attacks.
Pakistan's government condemned the " defamatory film, which deeply offended the sentiments of Muslims all over the world." It summoned the Dutch ambassador to lodge a " strong protest."
Protests have been simmering for weeks over the recent republication in Danish newspapers of cartoons of Prophet Muhammad, and authorities are concerned the Dutch film could spark the kind of violent unrest that the cartoons originally provoked two years ago.
A militant believed linked to al-Qaida's deputy chief Ayman al-Zawahri told The Associated Press in the northwestern city of Peshawar last week militants would mount revenge attacks against foreigners because of Wilders' film.
"Foreigners will be attacked. The situation will change, change, change," said Qari Mohammed Yusuf, whose also said his two brothers died fighting alongside al-Zawahri.
Jihadist threat over Fitna: "If there is no check on the freedom of your words, then let your hearts be open to the freedom of our actions"
This was just posted at a jihadist website -- and here is a Google translation of that site (thanks to Bill Warner for both).
"If there is no check on the freedom of your words, then let your hearts be open to the freedom of our actions," with a picture of Osama bin Laden (I gather this is a quote from him), and the World Trade Towers burning in the background.
Threat noted.Now: Who in the West will respond appropriately? McAuliffe comes to mind.
UPDATE: Rusty Shackleford contends that the quote above refers to the Muhammad cartoons, not to Fitna, although Bill apparently disagrees. In either case, threat noted, robust response needed.
Thanks Jihad Watch
"If there is no check on the freedom of your words, then let your hearts be open to the freedom of our actions," with a picture of Osama bin Laden (I gather this is a quote from him), and the World Trade Towers burning in the background.
Threat noted.Now: Who in the West will respond appropriately? McAuliffe comes to mind.
UPDATE: Rusty Shackleford contends that the quote above refers to the Muhammad cartoons, not to Fitna, although Bill apparently disagrees. In either case, threat noted, robust response needed.
Thanks Jihad Watch
UN OKs Islamic text against defamation
ELIANE ENGELER
Associated Press Writer
The top U.N. rights body on Thursday passed a resolution proposed by Islamic countries saying it is deeply concerned about the defamation of religions and urging governments to prohibit it.
The European Union said the text was one-sided because it primarily focused on Islam.
The U.N. Human Rights Council, which is dominated by Arab and other Muslim countries, adopted the resolution on a 21-10 vote over the opposition of Europe and Canada. EU countries, including France, Germany and Britain, voted against. Previously EU diplomats had said they wanted to stop the growing worldwide trend of using religious anti-defamation laws to limit free speech.
The document, which was put forward by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, "expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations."
Although the text refers frequently to protecting all religions, the only religion specified as being attacked is Islam, to which eight paragraphs refer.
Speaking for the EU, Slovenian Ambassador Andrej Logar said the 27-nation body was committed to tolerance, nondiscrimination and freedom of religion. But instead of a one-sided approach, it would be better to engage in dialogue with mutual respect.
The resolution "urges states to take actions to prohibit the dissemination ... of racist and xenophobic ideas" and material that would incite to religious hatred. It also urges states to adopt laws that would protect against hatred and discrimination stemming from religious defamation.
The pressure to protect religions from defamation has been growing ever since a Danish magazine published caricatures of Muhammad, provoking riots across the Islamic world in 2006 in which dozens of people were killed. The publication of a different caricature in a Swedish newspaper last year again led to protests from Muslims.
Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Associated Press Writer
The top U.N. rights body on Thursday passed a resolution proposed by Islamic countries saying it is deeply concerned about the defamation of religions and urging governments to prohibit it.
The European Union said the text was one-sided because it primarily focused on Islam.
The U.N. Human Rights Council, which is dominated by Arab and other Muslim countries, adopted the resolution on a 21-10 vote over the opposition of Europe and Canada. EU countries, including France, Germany and Britain, voted against. Previously EU diplomats had said they wanted to stop the growing worldwide trend of using religious anti-defamation laws to limit free speech.
The document, which was put forward by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, "expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations."
Although the text refers frequently to protecting all religions, the only religion specified as being attacked is Islam, to which eight paragraphs refer.
Speaking for the EU, Slovenian Ambassador Andrej Logar said the 27-nation body was committed to tolerance, nondiscrimination and freedom of religion. But instead of a one-sided approach, it would be better to engage in dialogue with mutual respect.
The resolution "urges states to take actions to prohibit the dissemination ... of racist and xenophobic ideas" and material that would incite to religious hatred. It also urges states to adopt laws that would protect against hatred and discrimination stemming from religious defamation.
The pressure to protect religions from defamation has been growing ever since a Danish magazine published caricatures of Muhammad, provoking riots across the Islamic world in 2006 in which dozens of people were killed. The publication of a different caricature in a Swedish newspaper last year again led to protests from Muslims.
Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)